Myrick v. Holmes

2025 ND 225

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

2025 ND 225

Kayla Myrick; Kayla Myrick on behalf of LM and LM, Petitioners v.

Terica Holmes, Respondent and Appellant

No. 20250199

Appeal from the District Court of Stark County, Southwest Judicial District, the Honorable Dann E. Greenwood, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

Per Curiam.

Terica Holmes, Dickinson, ND, respondent and appellant; submitted on brief.

Myrick v. Holmes No. 20250199

Per Curiam.

[¶1] Terica Holmes appeals from a disorderly conduct restraining order. She argues the restraining order violates her constitutional rights because it is “retaliatory and malicious.” Holmes’s brief does not contain a statement of facts, specify a standard of review, or provide citations to the record showing issues were preserved for review. See N.D.R.App.P. 28(b) (providing the minimum requirements for an appellant’s brief). We summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(8) because Holmes’s brief does not meet the minimum requirements.

[¶2] Jon J. Jensen, C.J.

Daniel J. Crothers Lisa Fair McEvers Jerod E. Tufte Douglas A. Bahr