Dr. Eugene Allen v. DeAnn Sholes, Debra Hallcy, and Rudd Owen

In The
Court of Appeals
Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

No. 07-25-00273-CV

DR. EUGENE ALLEN, APPELLANT

V.

DEANN SHOALS, DEBRA HALLCY, AND RUDD OWENS, APPELLEES

On Appeal from the 242nd District Court
Hale County, Texas
Trial Court No. B45742-2508, Honorable Kregg Hukill, Presiding

January 22, 2026
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before PARKER, C.J., and DOSS and YARBROUGH, JJ

Eugene Allen, appearing pro se, appeals from the trial court’s order in favor of

appellees. The underlying proceeding involved an alleged wrongful foreclosure. After a

hearing, the trial court dismissed the cause with prejudice. Allen contends this was

erroneous for several reasons. We affirm.

Allen filed an appellate brief with this Court on November 4, 2025. By letter, we

informed him his brief did not comply with appellate briefing requirements. We afforded

him an opportunity to correct the deficiencies and notified him that failure to do so could
result in the striking of his brief or waiver of his issues. Allen filed another brief on

November 10, 2025. He did not, however, correct the deficiencies and thus, the brief still

does not comply with appellate briefing rules.

A review of Allen’s November 10 appellate brief reveals, among other things, he

provides no substantive discussion and analysis of legal authority as applicable to his

issues, nor does he provide record references in support of his numerous assertions. The

Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure require adequate briefing. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1(i)

(“The [appellant’s] brief must contain a clear and concise argument for the contentions

made, with appropriate citations to authority and to the record”). ERI Consulting Eng’rs,

Inc. v. Swinnea, 318 S.W.3d 867, 880 (Tex. 2010) (holding that failure to provide citation

or argument and analysis as to an appellate issue may waive that issue); Burnett

Ranches, Ltd. v. Cano Petroleum, Inc., 289 S.W.3d 862, 870 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2009,

pet. denied) (citing In re M.J.G., 248 S.W.3d 753, 760–61 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2008,

no pet.)) (holding that conclusory or unexplained arguments without substantive analysis

do not satisfy the requirements of Rule 38.1(i) and result in waiver of the issue).

Having found Allen waived his issues for appellate review due to inadequate

briefing, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Alex Yarbrough
Justice

2