Appeal from the Order October 12, 2012 In the Court of Common Pleas of Union County Civil Division at No(s): 12-0727
Appeal from the Order Entered November 14, 2012 In the Court of Common Pleas of Union County Civil Division at No(s): 12-0801
Appeal from the Order Entered January 2, 2013 In the Court of Common Pleas of Union County Civil Division at No(s): 13-0001, 12-0889
Appeal from the Order January 16, 2013 In the Court of Common Pleas of Union County Civil Division at No(s):12-0740, 12-0857, 13-0023
BEFORE: BENDER, J., and SHOGAN, J. AND MUSMANNO, J.
Appellant, Timothy E. Holz, appeals pro se from multiple trial court orders denying complaints that Holz filed against various defendants, including the State of Pennsylvania. The trial court consolidated many of Appellant's cases, resulting in Appellant's having two separate appeals pending before this Court. For ease of disposition, we have further consolidated Appellant's two appeals into one. For the following reasons, we dismiss that appeal.
Appellant has submitted two pro se handwritten appellate briefs which utterly fail to comply in any manner with the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure. They contain none of the requisite sections specified in Pa.R.A.P. 2111. Moreover, Appellant's "argument" is incoherent and provides no citation to the record or relevant legal authority. Indeed, we are not even able to ascertain what Appellant's basic complaints are against the parties named as defendants/Appellees.
In light of the egregious defects in Appellant's briefs, we are precluded from conducting any meaningful review of his claims. Therefore, we dismiss his appeals. In re R.D., 44 A.3d 657, 674 (Pa. Super. 2012) ("[W]hen defects in a brief impede our ability to conduct meaningful appellate review, we may dismiss the appeal entirely or find certain issues to be waived.") (citing Commonwealt ...