Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed September 17, 2009.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-09-00057-CV

____________

TRENT ALVON SMITH, Appellant

V.

STATE OF TEXAS, NATHANIEL QUARTERMAN, ALFRED C. JANICEK, JR., MICHAEL D. BARNETT, KENZIE A. BOND, AND

PEDRO M. BOYKIN, Appellees

On Appeal from the 278th District Court

Walker, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 24,275

M E M O R A N D U M   O P I N I O N

Appellant Trent Alvon Smith appeals from the dismissal of his pro se inmate case brought in forma pauperis against appellees the State of Texas, Nathaniel Quarterman, Alfred C. Janicek, Jr., Michael D. Barnett, Kenzie A. Bond, and Pedro M. Boykin.  We affirm.

In his first issue, appellant claims the trial court abused its discretion when it dismissed his suit as frivolous.  The trial court=s order states the case is ADISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS as to all claims for failure to comply with Chapter 14 of the Teas Civil Practices and Remedies Code.@  The record reflects that appellant failed to file an affidavit of previous filings.  See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. ' 14.004(a).  Accordingly, the trial court was unable to determine whether appellant=s underlying claims are substantially similar to any previous suits and therefore frivolous. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code ' 14.003(b)(4).  Based on appellant=s failure to comply with section 14.004, the trial court was entitled to presume the current suit was frivolous or malicious and to dismiss the suit.  See Bell v. Texas Dept. of Criminal Justice - Institutional Div., 962 S.W.2d 156, 157 (Tex. App. B Houston [14th Dist.] 1998, pet. denied).  Appellant also complains the trial court dismissed his suit Awith prejudice.@  The order does not support appellant=s complaint.  Accordingly, issue one is overruled.

Issues two, three, five and six also claim, for various reasons, the trial court abused its discretion in dismissing appellant=s suit as frivolous.  Because we have determined the trial court properly dismissed the suit for failure to comply with Chapter 14, we need not address these issues.  See Tex. R. App. P. 47.1. 

In his fourth issue, appellant complains of the trial court=s assessment of costs against  him.  However, appellant=s brief contains no argument regarding that issue.  See Tex. R. App. 38.1(i).  Accordingly, nothing is presented for our review.

The judgment is affirmed.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Anderson, Guzman, and Boyce.