From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Melka v. Sarles

Court of Appeals of Texas, Fifth District, Dallas
Jul 24, 2024
No. 05-23-00947-CV (Tex. App. Jul. 24, 2024)

Opinion

05-23-00947-CV

07-24-2024

TADAEL GIRMA MELKA, Appellant v. KYLE SARLES, MATTHEW SHULER, AND MURPHY POLICE DEPARTMENT, Appellees


On Appeal from the 199th Judicial District Court Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 199-02660-2023

Before Justices Smith, Miskel, and Breedlove

MEMORANDUM OPINION

CRAIG SMITH JUSTICE

On January 25, 2024, we notified appellant, who is proceeding pro se, that his 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 that it did not contain a statement of the case, a table of authorities, or a table of contents. More importantly, the brief did not contain any citations to the record or to authorities. We instructed appellant to file an amended brief correcting the deficiencies within ten days.

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. And we are not responsible for searching the record for facts that may be favorable to a party's position. Bolling v. Farmers Branch Indep. Sch. Dist., 315 S.W.3d 893, 895 (Tex. App-Dallas 2010, no pet.)(citing Fredonia State Bank v. Gen. Am. Life Ins. Co., 881 S.W.2d 279, 283-284 (Tex. 1994)). Thus, 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, 315 S.W.3d at 895.

Even liberally construing appellant's brief, we conclude that it is wholly inadequate to present any questions for appellate review and is in flagrant violation of rule 38.1. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.1; Bolling, 315 S.W.3d at 895. Further, although directed to correct all deficiencies, appellant has failed to do so. Under these circumstances, we strike appellant's brief and dismiss this appeal for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.9(a); 42.3(b),(c).

JUDGMENT

In accordance with this Court's opinion of this date, this appeal is DISMISSED.


Summaries of

Melka v. Sarles

Court of Appeals of Texas, Fifth District, Dallas
Jul 24, 2024
No. 05-23-00947-CV (Tex. App. Jul. 24, 2024)
Case details for

Melka v. Sarles

Case Details

Full title:TADAEL GIRMA MELKA, Appellant v. KYLE SARLES, MATTHEW SHULER, AND MURPHY…

Court:Court of Appeals of Texas, Fifth District, Dallas

Date published: Jul 24, 2024

Citations

No. 05-23-00947-CV (Tex. App. Jul. 24, 2024)