Wilton Irvon Lombard, Jr. v. R&B Mobile Homes, Inc. Agent Penny Beaman

Opinion

In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas at Fort Worth

___________________________

No. 02-25-00609-CV

___________________________

WILTON IRVON LOMBARD JR., Appellant V.

R&B MOBILE HOMES, INC. AGENT PENNY BEAMAN, Appellee

On Appeal from County Court at Law No. 2 Wise County, Texas

Trial Court No. CV-9782

Before Sudderth, C.J.; Kerr and Walker, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Walker

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant Wilton Irvon Lombard Jr., proceeding pro se, attempts to appeal the trial court’s “ORDER DISMISSING CASE WITH PREJUDICE.”

On December 17, 2025, we received from Lombard a document that we construed as an appellant’s brief.1 On December 17, 2025; February 20, 2026; and May 15, 2026, we notified Lombard that his brief did not conform with Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 9.4(i), 9.5, and 38.1(a)–(k) or Second Court of Appeals Local Rule 1.A. See Tex. R. App. P. 9.4(i), 9.5, 38.1(a)–(k); 2nd Tex. App. (Fort Worth) Loc. R. 1.A. We thrice directed Lombard to file an amended brief complying with those rules and warned him of the consequence of his failure to do so: striking his noncompliant brief and dismissing his appeal.2 See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a), 38.9(a), 42.3. Despite our directions and warnings, Lombard has not filed an amended, rule- compliant brief.3

1 Lombard’s brief is identical to his notice of appeal and consists of eleven sentences.

Our May 15, 2025 notice explicitly directed Lombard to file an amended, rule-

2

compliant brief no later than May 26, 2026.

3 Instead, Lombard attempted to file various noncompliant motions, including “LOMBARD V. BEAMAN MOTION TO COMPEL CESSATION OF HARASSMENT” and “LOMBARD V BEAMSN [sic] MOTION TO COMPEL ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES AND DI.” These motions were returned for correction because they did not contain a certificate of service or certificate of conference. See Tex. R. App. P. 9.5, 10.1(a)(5). None of the motions can reasonably be construed as an amended, rule-compliant brief.

3

Accordingly, because Lombard has failed to file a rule-compliant brief after we afforded him an opportunity to do so, we strike his brief and dismiss this appeal for want of prosecution.4 See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a)(1), 38.9(a), 42.3(b), 43.2(f); Wise v. Walsh, No. 02-24-00391-CV, 2025 WL 421170, at *1 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Feb. 6, 2025, no pet.) (striking brief and dismissing appeal for want of prosecution because appellant failed to file a rule-compliant amended brief after we afforded her an opportunity to do so).

/s/ Brian Walker

Brian Walker

Justice

Delivered: July 23, 2026

4 We deny any pending motions.