Thomas L. White, Jr. v. City of Dallas

DISMISS and Opinion Filed August 23, 2024

S In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-24-00267-CV

THOMAS L. WHITE, JR., Appellant
V.
CITY OF DALLAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2
Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. CC-23-06936-B

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Molberg, Nowell, and Kennedy
Opinion by Justice Molberg
Appellant filed his brief on July 26, 2024. We then 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 an index of authority indicating the pages of

the brief where the authorities are cited, or a statement of the case supported by

record references. Further, the argument section of the brief does not contain any

citations to the record. We instructed appellant to file an amended brief correcting

these deficiencies within ten days. In the request, we cautioned appellant that the
appeal was subject to dismissal if appellant failed to file an amended brief in

compliance with the rules of appellate procedure. To date, appellant has 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 appellant’s 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 flagrant violation

of rule 38.

Although given the opportunity to correct the brief, appellant did not do so.

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

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

/Ken Molberg/
KEN MOLBERG
JUSTICE
240267F.P05

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

THOMAS L. WHITE, JR., Appellant On Appeal from the County Court at
Law No. 2, Dallas County, Texas
No. 05-24-00267-CV V. Trial Court Cause No. CC-23-06936-
B.
CITY OF DALLAS, Appellee Opinion delivered by Justice
Molberg. Justices Nowell and
Kennedy participating.

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

Judgment entered this 23rd day of August 2024.

–4–