*1 J-A15001-17

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 STANLEY J. CATERBONE IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellant

v.

LANCASTER CITY BUREAU OF POLICE

Appellee No. 1219 MDA 2016 Appeal from the Order Entered July 8, 2016 In the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County Civil Division at No(s): Cl-16-05815 BEFORE: MOULTON, J., SOLANO, J., and MUSMANNO, J.

JUDGMENT ORDER BY MOULTON, J.: FILED MAY 25, 2017

Stanley J. Caterbone appeals, pro se , from the July 8, 2016 order entered in the Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas denying his petition for a preliminary injunction. ^[1] We dismiss the appeal.

Caterbone’s filings with this Court do not comply with the requirements of the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure. His notice of appeal does not identify the order from which he is appealing, see Pa.R.A.P. 904(a); ^[2] Caterbone did not file a proof of service showing that he served the notice of appeal upon all parties, see Pa.R.A.P. 906(a)(1); and his appellate ____________________________________________

[1] In its July 8, 2016 order, the trial court stated that it denied Caterbone’s motion “for [his] failure to comply with the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure.”

[2] Although not identified in the notice of appeal, the July 8, 2016 order is appended to his notice of appeal.

J-A15001-17

“brief” is not in the form required by the Rules, see Pa.R.A.P. 2111-2119. In addition to these multiple procedural deficiencies, we are also utterly unable to discern from Caterbone’s lengthy, disjointed filing what issues he wishes to raise on appeal or what relief he is seeking. See Pa.R.A.P. 2101 (stating that appeal may be dismissed where defects in appellant’s brief are substantial). ^[3]

Appeal dismissed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 5/25/2017

____________________________________________

[3] Moreover, on October 27, 2016, the trial court ordered Caterbone to file a Rule 1925(b) statement of errors complained of on appeal by November 16, 2016. Caterbone did not comply. Therefore, on November 22, 2016, the trial court entered an order finding all issues waived for Caterbone’s failure to file a Rule 1925(b) statement. See Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(4)(vii) (stating that any issues not raised in court-ordered Rule 1925(b) statement are waived).

- 2 -