# Thomas, M. v. Board of Supervisors of Rice Twp.

> Superior Court of Pennsylvania · December 8, 2015

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3160964

## Case

- **Court:** Superior Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** December 8, 2015
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3160964

## Opinion text

J-A34021-15

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

MARCIA THOMAS IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellant

v.

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF RICE
TOWNSHIP; MILLER J. STELLA, JR.,
INDIVIDUALLY AND AS SUPERVISOR OF
RICE TOWNSHIP; GEORGE VENESKY,
INDIVIDUALLY AND AS SUPERVISOR OF
RICE TOWNSHIP; DONALD ARMSTRONG,
INDIVIDUALLY ; THOMAS M. MARSILIO,
INDIVIDUALLY; TONI ROGAN,
INDIVIDUALLY; KEVIN ROGAN,
INDIVIDUALLY, RHODA ROWLES,
INDIVIDUALLY; ELAINE WALLACE,
INDIVIDUALLY AND WILLIAM L. HIGGS,
INDIVIDUALLY, DEFENDANTS

AND
JAMES A. BRANDO, INDIVIDUALLY AND
LOUIS KNOPELSKI, INDIVIDUALLY,
ADDITIONAL DEFENDANTS

No. 1977 MDA 2014

Appeal from the Order Entered October 29, 2014
In the Court of Common Pleas of Luzerne County
Civil Division at No(s): 2011-03374

BEFORE: PANELLA, J., OTT, J., and JENKINS, J.

JUDGMENT ORDER BY OTT, J.: FILED DECEMBER 08, 2015

Marcia Thomas appeals from the order entered October 29, 2014,

granting Appellees’ (William L. Higgs and James A. Brando) amended motion

for summary judgment. We affirm.
J-A34021-15

In its October 29, 2014, order, the court found the following: “[T]here

exists no [conspiracy] claims against Defendants Higgs and Brando since all

parties allegedly involved in Count X[]VI have been DISMISSED with

prejudice and/or by previous Court Order.” Order, 10/29/2014. Upon

review, we agree with the trial court’s assessment and conclude that it did

not err in granting the amended motion for summary judgment.1

Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s order.

Order affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 12/8/2015

____________________________________________

1
Furthermore, we note Thomas’ deficient and obtuse brief, which remained
unclarified after oral argument, does not persuade us otherwise.

-2-

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3160964. Public record. Not legal advice.