Anthony Branch and All Occupants v. Fannie Mae a/k/a Federal National Mortgage Association--Appeal from County Court at Law No. 1 of Tarrant County (per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH NO. 02-11-00355-CV ANTHONY BRANCH AND ALL OCCUPANTS APPELLANTS V. FANNIE MAE A/K/A FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION APPELLEE ---------FROM COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 1 OF TARRANT COUNTY ---------- MEMORANDUM OPINION1 ---------On June 1, 2012, we notified Appellant Anthony Branch that his brief did not comply with appellate rules of procedure 9.4(h) and 38.1(d), (f), (i), and (k) and local rule 1.A(8).2 We allowed Appellant until June 11, 2012, to file an amended brief that 1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4. 2 See Tex. R. App. P. 38.1(d), (f), (i), (k); 2nd Tex. App. (Fort Worth) Loc. R. 1.A(8). complied with the above rules. We stated in our letter to Appellant that his failure to timely file an amended brief in compliance with the above rules could result in the waiver of noncompliant points, our striking his brief, or the dismissal of his appeal.3 We received Appellant s amended brief on June 11, 2012, but it too was noncompliant4 and therefore not filed by this court. We liberally construe pro se briefs, but to ensure fairness in our treatment of all litigants, we hold pro se litigants to the same standards as licensed attorneys and require pro se litigants to follow the applicable laws and rules of procedure. 5 Accordingly, we strike Appellant s brief, deny his request to supplement his original brief, and dismiss this appeal for want of prosecution.6 PER CURIAM PANEL: DAUPHINOT, GARDNER, and WALKER, JJ. DELIVERED: July 26, 2012 3 See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a), 38.9(a), 42.3(b), (c). 4 See Tex. R. App. P. 38.1(d), (i), (k). 5 See Mansfield State Bank v. Cohn, 573 S.W.2d 181, 184 85 (Tex. 1978); Shull v. United Parcel Serv., 4 S.W.3d 46, 53 (Tex. App. San Antonio 1999, pet. denied), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 835 (2000). 6 See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a), 38.9(a), 42.3(b), (c). 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.
