Charles Linder Floyd v. Wharton County

NUMBER 13-15-00480-CV
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
CHARLES LINDER FLOYD, Appellant,
v.
WHARTON COUNTY, ET AL, Appellee.
On appeal from the 329th District Court
of Wharton County, Texas.
ORDER
Before Justices Rodriguez, Benavides, and Perkes
Order Per Curiam
The appellant’s brief in the above cause was received by this Court on September
16, 2016. The brief fails generally to comply with Rules 9.4(i)(3), 9.5(e), and 38.1(b), (c),
(h), and (k) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See generally TEX. R. APP. P.
9.4., 9.5, 38.1. The brief does not contain a certificate of compliance stating the number
of words in the document. See TEX. R. APP. P. 9.4(i)(3). A certificate of service is
required. See TEX. R. APP. P. 9.5(e). The brief does not contain a table of contents with
references to the pages of the brief as required by Rule 38.1(b); does not contain an index
of authorities arranged alphabetically and indicating the pages of the brief where the
authorities are cited as required by Rule 38.1(c); does not contain a summary of the
argument containing a succinct, clear, and accurate statement of the arguments made in
the body of the brief as required by Rule 38.1(h); and does not contain an appendix with
necessary contents as required by Rule 38.1(k).
Accordingly, we ORDER appellant to file an amended brief that complies with
these rules within ten days from the date of receipt of this notice. If another brief that
does not comply is received by the Court, the Court may strike the brief, prohibit appellant
from filing another, and proceed as if appellant had failed to file a brief, under which
circumstances the Court may affirm the judgment or dismiss the appeal. See id. 38.9(a),
42.3(b), (c).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
PER CURIAM
Delivered and filed the
27th day of September, 2016.
2