Terry-Brayton Adams v. Protex Investments, LLC

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: August 1, 2023
• Docket: 01-23-00010-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

Opinion issued August 1, 2023

In The

Court of Appeals For The

First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-23-00010-CV ——————————— TERRY-BRAYTON ADAMS, Appellant V. PROTEX INVESTMENTS, LLC, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Civil Court at Law No. 3 Harris County, Texas Trial Court Case No. 1193536

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant is appealing pro se from a final judgment signed on December 12,

2022. Appellant tendered a brief in support of his request for a writ of replevin on

March 17, 2023. On April 3, 2023, appellant tendered his appellate brief, but the

court struck this brief by order on April 11, 2023 for noncompliance with Rule 38.1. In the order striking appellant’s brief, the Court noted the precise portions of

the brief that were inadequate, including the failure to include citations to the

record in the statement of facts and argument sections and the failure to include

citations to authority. The Court stated that appellant should file a brief in

compliance with Rule 38.1 within 20 days from the date of the order or the appeal

might be dismissed.

The corrected brief was due on May 1, 2023. The Court granted two

extensions of time to file the corrected brief until August 7, 2023. Appellant

tendered another brief on July 20, 2023. This brief also fails to comply with our

order of April 11, 2023 or Rule 38.1 in that it does not include sections identifying

the parties, a table of contents, an index of authorities, citations to the record in the

statement of the case or statement of facts, or an argument with citations to the

record or to authority.1 See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1.

We dismiss the appeal because the redrawn brief does not comply with Rule

38.1 or this Court’s order. Although we liberally construe briefs, appellant has not

substantially complied with the briefing rules. See Harkins v. Dever Nursing

Home, 999 S.W.2d 571, 573 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1999, no pet.).

1 Moreover, an argument concerning an issue “that is not supported by argument or citation to legal authority presents nothing for the court to review.” See Fed. Corp., Inc. v. Truhlar, 632 S.W.3d 697, 725 (Tex. App.— El Paso 2021, pet. denied).

2 Under these circumstances, we have determined that dismissal of the appeal is

warranted.

PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Kelly, Hightower, and Countiss.