Opinion
05-23-00856-CV
07-23-2024
CAROLYN SUE THOMAS, Appellant v. DALLAS HOUSING AUTHORITY, Appellee
On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2 Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CC-23-02447-B
Before Chief Justice Burns, Justice Molberg, and Justice Nowell
MEMORANDUM OPINION
ERIN A. NOWELL JUSTICE
On January 25, 2024, we notified appellant, who is proceeding pro se, that her 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 an index of authorities indicating the pages in the brief where the authorities are cited, and it did not contain proper citations either to the record or to authorities. We instructed appellant to file an amended brief correcting the deficiencies within ten days. We later extended the time to file her amended brief. On February 20, 2024, appellant filed an amended brief addressing some of the deficiencies, but not all. Like appellant's initial brief, appellant's argument does not contain any citations to the record or to authority. 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 201, no pet.) (citing Fredonia State Bank v. Gen. Am. Life Ins. Co., 881 S.W.2d 279, 283- 284 (Tex. 1994)).
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, 315 S.W.3d at 895.
Even liberally construing appellant's amended brief, we conclude that it is 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 amended 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, the appeal is DISMISSED.