Mark Mitchell Bradshaw v. Downtown Emergency Service Center

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
MARK MITCHELL BRADSHAW, ) No. 78807-8-I
Appellant, ) DIVISION ONE
)
v. ) UNPUBLISHED OPINION
DOWNTOWN EMERGENCY SERVICE )
CENTER, )
) FILED: August 19, 2019
Respondent. )
_________________________________________________________________________________________ )
PER CURIAM — Mark Bradshaw, proceeding pro se, appeals an order
dismissing his suit against the Downtown Emergency Service Center for
wrongfully denying him employment due to his housing status. We affirm.
Pro se litigants are held to the same standards as attorneys and must
comply with all procedural rules on appeal. In re Marriage of Olson, 69 Wn. App.
621, 626, 850 P.2d 527 (1993). Failure to do so may preclude review. State v.
Marintorres, 93 Wn. App. 442, 452, 969 P.2d 501 (1999). An appellant must
provide “argument in support of the issues presented for review, together with
citations to legal authority and references to relevant parts of the record.” RAP
10.3(a) (6). Arguments unsupported by references to the record or citation to
authority need not be considered. Cowiche Canyon Conservancy v. Bosley, 118
Wn.2d 801, 809, 828 P.2d 549 (1992). Claims presented without meaningful
1
No. 78807-8-1/2
analysis also need not be considered. Norcon Builders, LLC v. GMP Homes VG,
LLC, 161 Wn. App. 474, 486, 254 P.3d 835 (2011) (“We will not consider an
inadequately briefed argument.”) (quoting Bolan v. Cody, 119 Wn.2d 357, 368,
832 P.2d 71(1992)); State v. Rafay, 168 Wn. App. 734, 843, 285 P.3d 83 (2012)
(rejecting claim due to absence of meaningful argument or authority to support
conclusory claim); Marintorres, 93 Wn. App. at 452 (appellate court need not
consider pro se arguments that are conclusory). Finally, briefs should contain a
table of cases and assignments of error. RAP 10.3(a).
Bradshaw’s brief violates these rules. It contains no clear assignment of
error, no table of cases or table of contents, no citations to the record, insufficient
citation to pertinent authority, and most importantly, no meaningful analysis.
These omissions preclude effective review and are therefore fatal to the appeal.
Affirmed.
FOR THE COURT:
9,
a
J~9.