Tadael Girma Melka v. Kyle Sarles, Matthew Shuler, and Murphy Police Department

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: July 24, 2024
• Docket: 05-23-00947-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

DISMISS and Opinion Filed July 24, 2024

S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-23-00947-CV

TADAEL GIRMA MELKA, Appellant V. KYLE SARLES, MATTHEW SHULER, AND MURPHY POLICE DEPARTMENT, Appellees

On Appeal from the 199th Judicial District Court Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 199-02660-2023

MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Smith, Miskel, and Breedlove Opinion by Justice Smith On January 25, 2024, we notified appellant, who is proceeding pro se, that his

brief failed to comply with rule 38.1 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See

TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1. We listed numerous defects in the brief, including that it did

not contain a statement of the case, a table of authorities, or a table of contents.

More importantly, the brief did not contain any citations to the record or to

authorities. We instructed appellant to file an amended brief correcting the

deficiencies within ten days. The purpose of an appellant’s brief is to acquaint the Court with the issues in

a case and to present argument that will enable us to decide the case. See TEX. R.

APP. P. 38.9. And we are not responsible for searching the record for facts that may

be favorable to a party’s position. Bolling v. Farmers Branch Indep. Sch. Dist., 315

S.W.3d 893, 895 (Tex. App—Dallas 2010, no pet.)(citing Fredonia State Bank v.

Gen. Am. Life Ins. Co., 881 S.W.2d 279, 283–284 (Tex. 1994)). Thus, the right to

appellate review extends only to complaints made in accordance with our rules of

appellate procedure, which require an appellant to concisely articulate the issues we

are asked to decide, to make clear, concise, and specific arguments in support of

appellant’s position, to cite appropriate authorities, and to specify the pages in the

record where each alleged error can be found. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.1; Lee v.

Abbott, No. 05-18-01185-CV, 2019 WL 1970521, at *1 (Tex. App—Dallas May 3,

2019, no pet.) (mem. op.); Bolling, 315 S.W.3d at 895.

Even liberally construing appellant’s brief, we conclude that it is wholly

inadequate to present any questions for appellate review and is in flagrant violation

of rule 38.1. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.1; Bolling, 315 S.W.3d at 895. Further, although

directed to correct all deficiencies, appellant has failed to do so.

–2– Under these circumstances, we strike appellant’s brief and dismiss this appeal for

want of prosecution. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.9(a); 42.3(b),(c).

/Craig Smith/ CRAIG SMITH 230947F.P05 JUSTICE

–3– S Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT

TADAEL GIRMA MELKA, On Appeal from the 199th Judicial Appellant District Court, Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 199-02660- No. 05-23-00947-CV V. 2023. Opinion delivered by Justice Smith. KYLE SARLES, MATTHEW Justices Miskel and Breedlove SHULER, AND MURPHY POLICE participating. DEPARTMENT, Appellees

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

Judgment entered July 24, 2024

–4–