Inyang Peter Oduok filed this pro se appeal from the trial court’s order administratively closing his pro se suit against Sean Phillips, a DeKalb County police officer, Eddie Moody, the Chief of Police, DeKalb County and its Chief Executive Officer, and various other county departments and department heads. Because we agree with the trial court and appellees that the trial court had no jurisdiction to entertain the action, we affirm. Uduok filed suit against appellees and various other governmental agencies and individuals in DeKalb County Superior Court, alleging that appellees violated his civil rights and stating various state law claims against appellees, including false arrest, assault and battery, false imprisonment, malicious prosecution, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligence, negligent supervision, and conspiracy. After being served, Phillips, Moody, and the DeKalb County Department of Public Safety filed a notice of removal in the U. S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia under 28 USC § §1441 and 1446. They also filed a notice of the filing in the Superior Court of DeKalb County and served Oduok. As a result, the superior court entered an order directing that the case be closed and classified as “an administrative closure.” Uduok then filed a motion to vacate the order closing his case, and a hearing was scheduled on the motion. The trial court never ruled on the motion, and according to Oduok the motion was taken off the hearing calendar. This appeal ensued.
1. Uduok raises two enumerations of error. In the first enumeration he contends the trial court erred in dismissing his case. In the second enumeration of error he contends that the trial court “erred in taking his motion to vacate off the hearing calendar and refusing to reinstate the motion on demand.” No dismissal order appears in the record, and the argument section of Uduok’s brief does not make clear which enumeration he is addressing. The argument merely addresses six separate issues all different from the enumerations of error. This court’s rules as to the form of briefs were formulated to assist parties in presenting their arguments in a manner most conducive to a full and efficient consideration by this court. Aldalassi v. Drummond , 223 Ga. App. 192 1 477 SE2d 372 1996. Ordinarily, “parties are not permitted to enlarge their enumeration of errors by including additional issues in their brief. Cits.” K-Mart Corp. v. Hackett , 237 Ga. App. 127, 130 1 514 SE2d 884 1999. Nevertheless, in deference to Oduok’s pro se status, Bennett v. Moody , 225 Ga. App. 95, 96 483 SE2d 350 1997, we will attempt to address these arguments to the best of our ability as we understand them. Brison v. State , 248 Ga. App. 168 1 545 SE2d 345 2001.
