Don McCaffety v. Joe Pinon Appeal from Co Civil Ct at Law No 1 of Harris County (memorandum opinion per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed November 7, 2017. In The Fourteenth Court of Appeals NO. 14-17-00430-CV DON MCCAFFETY, Appellant V. JOE PINON, Appellee On Appeal from the County Civil Court at Law No. 1 Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 1083475 MEMORANDUM OPINION On August 8, 2017, appellant Don McCaffety tendered a brief that did not comply with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. This court struck the brief and returned it to appellant for correction. See Tex. R. App. P. 9.4(i) (permitting court to return nonconforming documents for correction). On October 25, 2017, appellant submitted another nonconforming brief. Appellant’s amended brief is virtually identical to the stricken brief with the exception of the deletion of “counts” raised by appellant. Like appellant’s original brief, appellant’s amended brief fails to comply with the briefing requirements set forth in Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.1. Most significantly, appellant has failed to make any legal arguments to support reversal of the judgment, and the brief contains no citations to the record. Tex. R. App. P. 38.1(h). If a party files a brief that does not comply with the rules, and that party files an amended brief that likewise does not comply with the rules, as in this case, “the court may strike the brief, prohibit the party from filing another, and proceed as if the party had failed to file a brief.” Tex. R. App. P. 38.9(a). Although we liberally construe briefs, appellant has not substantially complied with the briefing rules. See Harkins v. Dever Nursing Home, 999 S.W.2d 571, 573 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1999, no pet.) (citing Tex. R. App. P. 38.9)). Because appellant has not filed an amended brief in compliance with Rule 38, we proceed as if appellant has failed to file a brief. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.9. Under these circumstances, we dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a)(1); Harkins, 999 S.W.2d at 573. PER CURIAM Panel consists of Chief Justice Frost and Justices Boyce and Jewell. 2
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.
