Opinion
05-23-00822-CV
10-02-2024
MARIAH LOCKRIDGE AND NORMA LOCKRIDGE, Appellants v. RIDGE AT TRINITY APTS, Appellees
On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 5 Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CC-23-04463-E
Before Justices Partida-Kipness, Goldstein, and Miskel
MEMORANDUM OPINION
BONNIE LEE GOLDSTEIN, JUSTICE
Appellants filed a brief on August 1, 2024. We then notified appellants, who are proceeding pro se, that the brief failed to comply with rule 38.1 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.1. We listed numerous defects in the brief, including, but not limited to, that it did not contain a list of the parties, a statement of the case supported by record references, a statement of facts supported by record references, or a proper certificate of service or compliance. Further, the argument section of the brief does not contain any citations to any authorities or to the record. On August 16, 2024, we instructed appellants to file an amended brief correcting these deficiencies within ten days. In the request, we cautioned appellants that the appeal was subject to dismissal if appellants failed to file an amended brief in compliance with the rules of appellate procedure. To date, appellants have failed to do so.
The purpose of an appellant's brief is to acquaint the Court with the issues in a case and to present argument that will enable us to decide the case. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.9. The right to appellate review extends only to complaints made in accordance with our rules of appellate procedure, which require an appellant to concisely articulate the issues we are asked to decide, to make clear, concise, and specific arguments in support of appellant's position, to cite appropriate authorities, and to specify the pages in the record where each alleged error can be found. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.1; Lee v. Abbott, No. 05-18-01185-CV, 2019 WL 1970521, at *1 (Tex. App-Dallas May 3, 2019, no pet.) (mem. op.); Bolling v. Farmers Branch Indep. Sch. Dist., 315 S.W.3d 893, 895 (Tex. App-Dallas 2010, no pet.). Even liberally construing appellants' brief, we conclude it fails to acquaint the Court with the issues in the case, does not enable us to decide the case, does not make clear, concise, specific arguments supported by legal authority, and is in violation of rule 38.
Although given the opportunity to correct the brief, appellants did not do so. Under these circumstances, we strike appellants' brief and dismiss this appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.9(a); 42.3(b),(c).
JUDGMENT
In accordance with this Court's opinion of this date, the appeal is DISMISSED.
Judgment entered October 2, 2024