Order filed July 26, 2012

In The Fourteenth Court of Appeals ____________ NO. 14-12-00010-CV ____________ EDWARD LEE ABRAM, Appellant V. JOHN JAMES IN HIS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY AND BIG JOHN TRUCKING, LLC, Appellees

On Appeal from the 234th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2011-20867

ORDER Appellant, who is pro se in this appeal, filed a brief on May 24, 2012. On June 22, 2012, appellees filed a brief in response, complaining that appellant’s brief fails to comply with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. We agree. Appellant has not properly presented this cause in his brief by substantially complying with Rule 38 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. In particular, appellant failed to state concisely the issues for review, state the pertinent facts supported by record references, and 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), (g), (i).

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). “A court of appeals must not affirm or reverse a judgment or dismiss an appeal for formal defects or irregularities in appellate procedure without allowing a reasonable time to correct or amend the defects or irregularities.” Tex. R. App. P. 44.3. A reasonable time is given to an appellant when he is provided with an opportunity to amend a defective brief. See Fredonia State Bank v. General Am. Life Ins. Co., 881 S.W.2d 279, 284 (Tex. 1994).

Accordingly, we STRIKE appellant’s brief. Pursuant to Rule 38.9(b), the court orders appellant to file a corrected brief complying with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure on or before August 24, 2012. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.9(b). If appellant fails to file a brief in compliance with the rules as ordered herein, the appeal will be dismissed.

See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b); see Bolling v. Farmers Branch I.S.D., 315 S.W.3d 893, 895 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2010, no pet.).

PER CURIAM