Roosevelt Trammel v. D & D Auto Repair Service ( 2024 )

DISMISS and Opinion Filed July 16, 2024
S In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-24-00412-CV
ROOSEVELT TRAMMEL, Appellant
V.
D & D AUTO REPAIR SERVICE, Appellee
On Appeal from the 116th Judicial District Court
Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. DC-22-07816
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Chief Justice Burns, Justice Molberg, and Justice Nowell
Opinion by Justice Nowell
Appellant filed his brief on May 23, 2024. We then 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 table of contents, an index of authority
indicating the pages of the brief where the authorities are cited, or a statement of the
case supported by record references. Further, no part of the brief contained any
citations to the record or to any authorities. We instructed appellant to file an
amended brief correcting these deficiencies within ten days. In the request, we
cautioned appellant that the appeal was subject to dismissal if appellant failed to file
an amended brief in compliance with the rules of appellate procedure. To date,
appellant has 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 appellant’s 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, and is in flagrant violation of rule 38.
–2–
Although given the opportunity to correct the brief, appellant did not do so.
Under these circumstances, we strike appellant’s brief and dismiss this appeal. See
TEX. R. APP. P. 38.9(a); 42.3(b),(c).
/Erin A. Nowell/
ERIN A. NOWELL
JUSTICE
240412F.P05
–3–
S
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
JUDGMENT
ROOSEVELT TRAMMEL, On Appeal from the 116th Judicial
Appellant District Court, Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. DC-22-07816.
No. 05-24-00412-CV V. Opinion delivered by Justice Nowell.
Chief Justice Burns and Justice
D & D AUTO REPAIR SERVICE, Molberg participating.
Appellee
In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, this appeal is
DISMISSED.
Judgment entered July 16, 2024
–4–