DISMISS and Opinion Filed August 23, 2024

S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-24-00267-CV THOMAS L. WHITE, JR., Appellant V. CITY OF DALLAS, Appellee On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2 Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CC-23-06936-B MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Molberg, Nowell, and Kennedy Opinion by Justice Molberg Appellant filed his brief on July 26, 2024. We then 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 an index of authority indicating the pages of the brief where the authorities are cited, or a statement of the case supported by record references. Further, the argument section of the brief does not contain any citations to the record. We instructed appellant to file an amended brief correcting these deficiencies within ten days. In the request, we cautioned appellant that the appeal was subject to dismissal if appellant failed to file an amended brief in compliance with the rules of appellate procedure. To date, appellant has failed to do so. 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. 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 v. Farmers Branch Indep. Sch. Dist., 315 S.W.3d 893, 895 (Tex. App—Dallas 2010, no pet.). Even liberally construing appellant’s brief, we conclude it fails to acquaint the Court with the issues in the case, does not enable us to decide the case, does not make clear, concise, specific arguments supported by legal authority, and is in flagrant violation of rule 38.

Although given the opportunity to correct the brief, appellant did not do so.

–2– Under these circumstances, we strike appellant’s brief and dismiss this appeal.

See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.9(a); 42.3(b),(c).

/Ken Molberg/ KEN MOLBERG JUSTICE 240267F.P05

–3– S Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT THOMAS L. WHITE, JR., Appellant On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2, Dallas County, Texas No. 05-24-00267-CV V. Trial Court Cause No. CC-23-06936- B.

CITY OF DALLAS, Appellee Opinion delivered by Justice Molberg. Justices Nowell and Kennedy participating.

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

Judgment entered this 23rd day of August 2024.

–4–