Jeremiah Trombly v. Department of the Air Force

Fourth Court of Appeals
San Antonio, Texas
MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-14-00729-CV
Jeremiah TROMBLY,
Appellant
v.
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE,
Appellee
From the 198th Judicial District Court, Bandera County, Texas
Trial Court No. CV-14-0000304
Honorable M. Rex Emerson, Judge Presiding
Opinion by: Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice
Sitting: Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice
Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice
Jason Pulliam, Justice
Delivered and Filed: July 8, 2015
DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION
On November 25, 2014, we notified pro se Appellant Jeremiah Trombly that the brief filed
on November 24, 2014, failed to comply with Rule 38.1 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure.
See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1. We recited some of the defects in his brief: e.g., no part of the brief
contained any citations to the record, the brief failed to list or cite any authorities to support
Appellant’s arguments, and the brief contained no proof of service. See id. R. 9.5(d), (e).
We struck Appellant’s brief and ordered him to file an amended brief that corrected the
listed deficiencies and fully complied with the applicable rules. See, e.g., id. R. 9.4, 9.5, 38.1. We
04-14-00729-CV
warned Appellant that if the amended brief did not comply with our order, we could “strike the
brief, prohibit [appellant] from filing another, and proceed as if [appellant] had failed to file a
brief.” See id. R. 38.9(a).
On December 29, 2014, Appellant filed an amended brief, and on January 5, 2015,
Appellant filed a “final” brief. We construe the final brief as a second amended brief; thus, the
final brief completely replaced the amended brief, and we review only the final brief. See 4TH
TEX. APP. (SAN ANTONIO) LOC. R. 8 cmt. (amended brief completely replaces earlier brief).
The eleven-page final brief identifies the parties, includes a table of contents, and contains
an index listing three authorities. The Statement of the Case, Issues Presented, Standard of
Review, Argument, and Conclusion and Prayer sections comprise three pages plus one sentence
on a fourth page. The brief contains no citations to the record, only fact-oriented complaints.
Although Trombly complains of certain actions by the Air Force, his brief does not state
that, or explain how, the trial court committed reversible error. The entire argument section
consists of five sentences divided into two paragraphs. The section contains no citations to the
record nor any citations to any authorities. Contra TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1(i) (requiring “clear and
concise argument for the contentions made, with appropriate citations to authorities and to the
record”).
Appellant’s brief is wholly inadequate to present any questions for appellate review. See
Ruiz v. State, 293 S.W.3d 685, 693 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2009, pet. ref’d); Robert L. Crill,
Inc. v. Bond, 76 S.W.3d 411, 423 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2001, pet. denied). We strike Appellant’s
final brief and dismiss this appeal for want of prosecution. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(a)(1), 38.9(a),
42.3(b).
Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice
-2-