DISMISS and Opinion Filed July 24, 2024

S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-23-00947-CV TADAEL GIRMA MELKA, Appellant V. KYLE SARLES, MATTHEW SHULER, AND MURPHY POLICE DEPARTMENT, Appellees On Appeal from the 199th Judicial District Court Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 199-02660-2023 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Smith, Miskel, and Breedlove Opinion by Justice Smith On January 25, 2024, we notified appellant, who is proceeding pro se, that his brief failed to comply with rule 38.1 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1. We listed numerous defects in the brief, including that it did not contain a statement of the case, a table of authorities, or a table of contents.

More importantly, the brief did not contain any citations to the record or to authorities. We instructed appellant to file an amended brief correcting the deficiencies within ten days.

The purpose of an appellant’s brief is to acquaint the Court with the issues in a case and to present argument that will enable us to decide the case. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.9. And we are not responsible for searching the record for facts that may be favorable to a party’s position. Bolling v. Farmers Branch Indep. Sch. Dist., 315 S.W.3d 893, 895 (Tex. App—Dallas 2010, no pet.)(citing Fredonia State Bank v. Gen. Am. Life Ins. Co., 881 S.W.2d 279, 283–284 (Tex. 1994)). Thus, the right to appellate review extends only to complaints made in accordance with our rules of appellate procedure, which require an appellant to concisely articulate the issues we are asked to decide, to make clear, concise, and specific arguments in support of appellant’s position, to cite appropriate authorities, and to specify the pages in the record where each alleged error can be found. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.1; Lee v. Abbott, No. 05-18-01185-CV, 2019 WL 1970521, at *1 (Tex. App—Dallas May 3, 2019, no pet.) (mem. op.); Bolling, 315 S.W.3d at 895.

Even liberally construing appellant’s brief, we conclude that it is wholly inadequate to present any questions for appellate review and is in flagrant violation of rule 38.1. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.1; Bolling, 315 S.W.3d at 895. Further, although directed to correct all deficiencies, appellant has failed to do so.

–2– Under these circumstances, we strike appellant’s brief and dismiss this appeal for want of prosecution. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.9(a); 42.3(b),(c).

/Craig Smith/ CRAIG SMITH 230947F.P05 JUSTICE

–3– S Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT TADAEL GIRMA MELKA, On Appeal from the 199th Judicial Appellant District Court, Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 199-02660- No. 05-23-00947-CV V. 2023.

Opinion delivered by Justice Smith.

KYLE SARLES, MATTHEW Justices Miskel and Breedlove SHULER, AND MURPHY POLICE participating.

DEPARTMENT, Appellees In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, this appeal is DISMISSED.

Judgment entered July 24, 2024

–4–