Leo Roger Dugas v. Ryan Edward Reuter

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

__________________

NO. 09-25-00121-CV
__________________

LEO ROGER DUGAS, Appellant

V.

RYAN EDWARD REUTER, Appellee

__________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 253rd District Court
Liberty County, Texas
Trial Cause No. 24DC-CV-00535
__________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant Leo Roger Dugas filed a Suit to Quiet Title against Ryan Edward

Reuter regarding certain real property located in Liberty County, Texas. The trial

court denied Dugas’s motion for summary judgment and granted Reuter’s motion

for summary judgment, finding that Reuter has superior title and rendering a take-

nothing judgment against Dugas. Dugas perfected an appeal. Acting pro se, Dugas

1
filed a brief that presented a single issue—“whether the trial court reviewed

Appellant’s exhibits incorrectly by failing to rule in his favor”—but cited no legal

authorities to support his issue.

On September 25, 2025, we granted Appellee Ryan Edward Reuter’s Motion

to Stike Appellant’s Brief. We ordered Dugas to file a compliant amended brief. See

Tex. R. App. P. 38.9(a). We warned Appellant that unless he timely filed an amended

brief that complies with Rule 38.1, the Court would proceed as if Appellant failed to

file a brief and that his appeal could be dismissed for want of prosecution.

We received an amended Appellant’s Brief, but the brief lacks the identity of

the Appellee and Appellee’s counsel, a table of contents, an index of authorities, a

statement of the case, a statement regarding oral argument, issues presented, a

statement of facts, a summary of the argument, an argument, a prayer, and an

appendix. See id. 38.1.

On February 18, 2026, the Clerk of the Court notified the parties that the Court

had reviewed Appellant’s Amended Brief and determined that the brief fails to

comply with Rule 38.1. The Clerk notified the parties that the appeal would be

submitted on the clerk’s record alone without oral argument on March 11, 2026. See

id. 39.8. Because Dugas has not filed a brief in his appeal addressing error for

2
appellate review, we dismiss Dugas’s appeal for want of prosecution. See id.

38.8(a)(1), 42.3(b), 43.2(f).

APPEAL DISMISSED.

PER CURIAM

Submitted on March 11, 2026
Opinion Delivered April 16, 2026

Before Golemon, C.J., Johnson and Chambers, JJ.

3