Shelia Mae Wolfe v. Mickey Rae Davis, Independent Administratrix of the Estate of Minnie Marlene Cannon, Deceased Appeal from 15th Judicial District Court of Grayson County (memorandum opinion )

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

DISMISS; and Opinion Filed November 17, 2016. S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-16-00826-CV SHELIA MAE WOLFE, Appellant V. MICKEY RAE DAVIS, INDEPENDENT ADMINISTRATRIX OF THE ESTATE OF MINNIE MARLENE CANNON, DECEASED, Appellee On Appeal from the 15th Judicial District Court Grayson County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CV-15-1979 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Chief Justice Wright and Justices Lang-Miers and Stoddart Opinion by Justice Lang-Miers Before the Court is appellee’s October 26, 2016 motion to dismiss appeal. We hold pro se litigants to the same standards as licensed attorneys and require them to comply with applicable laws and rules of procedure. See Bolling v. Farmers Branch Indep. Sch. Dist., 315 S.W.3d 893, 895 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2010, no pet.). Our appellate rules have specific briefing rules that require an appellant to state concisely her complaint, provide an understandable, succinct, and clear argument to support her contentions, and cite and apply relevant law together with appropriate record references. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1(f), (h), (i); Bolling, 315 S.W.3d at 895. Pro se appellant Sheila Mae Wolfe filed her original brief on September 26, 2016. On October 4, 2016, we informed appellant by letter that her original brief was deficient in all respects and failed to comply with the briefing requirements of Rule 38.1. Those deficiencies included, but were not limited to the absence of: (1) the required list of parties and counsel, table of contents, and index of authorities, (2) a concise statement of the case supported by record references, (3) a concise statement of the facts supported by record references, (4) a concise statement of all issues or points presented for review, (5) a succinct, clear, and accurate statement of the arguments made in the body of the brief with appropriate citations to legal authority and the record, (6) a short conclusion clearly stating the nature of the relief sought, (7) a proper certificate of service, and (8) an appendix including the required documents. We instructed appellant to file an amended brief that complied with the rules of appellate procedure within ten days. Our notice advised appellant that failure to file a compliant amended brief “may result in dismissal of this appeal without further notice from the Court. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a)(1), 42.3(b), (c).” Appellant’s corrected brief was due October 14, 2016. Appellant has not filed her corrected brief and has not filed a motion to extend her deadline to file her corrected brief. Appellant has also failed to respond to appellee’s October 26, 2016 motion to dismiss appeal or otherwise communicate with the Court since the motion was filed. Because appellant has failed to comply with the briefing requirements of our appellate rules after having been given the opportunity to do so, we grant appellee’s motion to dismiss and dismiss this appeal. See Bolling, 315 S.W.3d at 897; TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(b). /s/Elizabeth Lang-Miers/ ELIZABETH LANG-MIERS JUSTICE 160826F.P05 –2– S Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT SHELIA MAE WOLFE, Appellant No. 05-16-00826-CV On Appeal from the 15th Judicial District Court, Grayson County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CV-15-1979. Opinion delivered by Justice Lang-Miers. Chief Justice Wright and Justice Stoddart participating. V. MICKEY RAE DAVIS, INDEPENDENT ADMINISTRATRIX OF THE ESTATE OF MINNIE MARLENE CANNON, DECEASED, Appellee In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the appeal is DISMISSED. It is ORDERED that appellee MICKEY RAE DAVIS, INDEPENDENT ADMINISTRATRIX OF THE ESTATE OF MINNIE MARLENE CANNON, DECEASED recover her costs of this appeal from appellant SHELIA MAE WOLFE. Judgment entered this 17th day of November, 2016. –3–

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.