Mariah Lockridge and Norma Lockridge v. Ridge at Trinity Apts

DISMISS and Opinion Filed October 2, 2024

S In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-23-00822-CV

MARIAH LOCKRIDGE AND NORMA LOCKRIDGE, Appellants
V.
RIDGE AT TRINITY APTS, Appellees

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 5
Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. CC-23-04463-E

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Partida-Kipness, Goldstein, and Miskel
Opinion by Justice Goldstein
Appellants filed a brief on August 1, 2024. We then notified appellants, who

are proceeding pro se, that the 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, but not limited to, that it did not contain a list of the parties,

a statement of the case supported by record references, a statement of facts supported

by record references, or a proper certificate of service or compliance. Further, the

argument section of the brief does not contain any citations to any authorities or to

the record. On August 16, 2024, we instructed appellants to file an amended brief
correcting these deficiencies within ten days. In the request, we cautioned appellants

that the appeal was subject to dismissal if appellants failed to file an amended brief

in compliance with the rules of appellate procedure. To date, appellants have failed

to do so.

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. 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 v. Farmers Branch

Indep. Sch. Dist., 315 S.W.3d 893, 895 (Tex. App—Dallas 2010, no pet.). Even

liberally construing appellants’ brief, we conclude it fails to acquaint the Court with

the issues in the case, does not enable us to decide the case, does not make clear,

concise, specific arguments supported by legal authority, and is in violation of rule

38.

–2–
Although given the opportunity to correct the brief, appellants did not do so.

Under these circumstances, we strike appellants’ brief and dismiss this appeal. See

TEX. R. APP. P. 38.9(a); 42.3(b),(c).

/Bonnie Lee Goldstein/
BONNIE LEE GOLDSTEIN
JUSTICE
230822F.P05

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

MARIAH LOCKRIDGE AND On Appeal from the County Court at
NORMA LOCKRIDGE, Appellants Law No. 5, Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. CC-23-04463-
No. 05-23-00822-CV V. E.
Opinion delivered by Justice
RIDGE AT TRINITY APTS, Goldstein. Justices Partida-Kipness
Appellee and Miskel participating.

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

Judgment entered October 2, 2024

–4–