Leskel Nichols v. Downtown Kwik Lube

Opinion

DISMISSED and Opinion Filed April 15, 2020

S In The

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-19-00863-CV

LESKEL NICHOLS, Appellant V.

DOWNTOWN KWIK LUBE, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 4 Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. CC-19-00165-D

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Burns, Justice Whitehill, and Justice Molberg Opinion by Chief Justice Burns Pro se appellant Leskel Nichols appeals the trial court’s judgment in his favor.

When appellant filed his brief on January 2, 2020, we determined it was deficient. By letter dated January 10, 2020, we notified appellant that his brief failed to comply with the requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.1. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1. We provided appellant an opportunity to file an amended brief that complied with rule 38.1’s requirements within ten days and cautioned him that failure to comply might result in dismissal of the appeal without further notice. See id. 38.8(a)(1); 42.3(b), (c). By order dated January 17, 2020, we granted appellant an extension to February 18, 2020. We again cautioned that failure to comply might

2

result in dismissal of the appeal without further notice. Appellant did not file an amended brief.

Although civil litigants may represent themselves at trial and on appeal, pro se litigants must adhere to our rules of evidence and procedure, including the appellate rules of procedure. Bolling v. Farmers Branch Indep. Sch. Dist., 315 S.W.3d 893, 895 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2010, no pet.). Our appellate rules have specific requirements for briefing. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38. Among other requirements, the rules require appellants to state concisely their complaints; provide understandable, succinct, and clear argument showing why their complaints are meritorious in fact and in law; cite and apply applicable law; and provide appropriate references to the record. See id. 38.1(f–i); Bolling, 315 S.W.3d at 895. If an appellant fails to provide adequate briefing, we may dismiss the appeal. TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3; Bolling, 315 S.W.3d at 895–96.

Appellant failed to file a brief that complies with our briefing rules, despite being notified of his brief’s deficiencies and being given multiple opportunities to amend. Appellant’s brief fails to provide a concise statement of facts supported by record references or argument with appropriate citations to the record and legal authorities. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1(g), (i). Without adequate briefing, especially the lack of support by reference to the record and authorities, appellant is not entitled to judicial review. See id.; Bolling, 315 S.W.3d at 895–96.

3

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(c); Bolling, 315 S.W.3d at 895–96.

/Robert D.Burns, III/

ROBERT D. BURNS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE

190863F.P05

4

S

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT

LESKEL NICHOLS, Appellant On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 4, Dallas County, Texas No. 05-19-00863-CV V. Trial Court Cause No. CC-19-00165-

D.

DOWNTOWN KWIK LUBE, Opinion delivered by Chief Justice Appellee Burns. Justices Whitehill and Molberg participating.

In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the appeal is DISMISSED.

It is ORDERED that appellee DOWNTOWN KWIK LUBE recover its costs of this appeal, if any, from appellant LESKEL NICHOLS.

Judgment entered April 15, 2020