Kechinyere Azaga v. Uplift House Et Al--Appeal from Co Civil Ct at Law No 1 of Harris County

Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed April 14, 2005.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-04-00910-CV

____________

KECHINYERE AZAGA, Appellant

V.

UPLIFT HOUSE and R.E. UNDERWOOD, Appellees

On Appeal from the County Civil Court at Law No. 1

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 818,120

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

This is an appeal from a judgment signed July 28, 2004. The clerk=s record was filed on September 27, 2004. On December 3, 2004, the court reporter, Jennifer Slessinger, informed the court that no reporter=s record was taken in this case. Accordingly, the court set appellant=s brief due date as January 3, 2005. No brief or motion for extension of time to file the brief was filed. Accordingly, on January 20, 2005, this court ordered appellant to file a brief, along with a motion for extension of time explaining why the brief was late, on or before February 22, 2005.

Appellant, who is pro se, filed a document that she attempted to have considered as her brief. The court determined that appellant had not properly presented this cause in her brief. Appellant failed to substantially comply with Rule 38 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. In particular, the rules require appellant to provide a clear and concise argument for each contention made with appropriate citations to the record and to authority. Tex. R. App. P. 38.1(f), (h). Appellant did not present any issues that would require reversal of the trial court=s judgment. In addition, appellant did not cite to the record or to any legal authority to support her appeal. Appellant completely failed to include the contents for an appellant=s brief as mandated by Rule 38, including the identity of the parties and counsel, table of contents, an index of authorities, statement of the case, issues presented, statement of facts, summary of the argument, argument, and prayer for relief. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.1. Appellant also failed to include an appendix. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.1(j).

Litigants who appear pro se must comply with the applicable procedural rules and are held to the same standards that apply to licensed attorneys. See Mansfield State Bank v. Cohn, 573 S.W.2d 181, 185 (Tex. 1978); Steffan v. Steffan, 29 S.W.3d 627, 631 (Tex. App.CHouston [14th Dist.] 2000, pet. denied). Accordingly, On February 24, 2005, pursuant to Rule 38.9(b), the court ordered appellant to file an amended brief complying with the rules of appellate procedure on or before March 18, 2005. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.9(b). Our order warned that if appellant failed to file her brief on or before March 18, 2005, the appeal would be dismissed for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b). Appellant filed no response.

Accordingly, the appeal is ordered dismissed.

PER CURIAM

Judgment rendered and Memorandum Opinion filed April 14, 2005.

Panel consists of Chief Justice Hedges and Justices Fowler and Frost.