|
|
COURT OF APPEALS
SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH
NO. 2-06-204-CV
IN THE INTEREST OF
M.A.K., A MINOR CHILD
----------
FROM THE 325TH DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY
----------
MEMORANDUM OPINION[1] AND JUDGMENT
----------
On September 25, 2006, appellant, acting pro se, filed his brief with this court. On November 7, 2006, we notified appellant that his brief was defective in substance and form, specifically listing the ways in which the brief does not comply with the rules of appellate procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.6(d), (f), (h) and 42.3. We also stated that failure to file an amended brief complying with the rules on or before November 21, 2006, could result in us striking the noncompliant brief, waiver of any nonconforming points, or dismissal of the appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.9. Appellant has not filed an amended brief, nor has he responded to our letter.
Rule 38.9 provides that Asubstantial compliance@ with the briefing rules is required subject to exceptions. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.9. First, if the court determines that the briefing rules have been flagrantly violated as to form, the court may require the appellant to amend, supplement, or redraw his brief. Id. 38.9(a). If the appellant files another brief that does not comply, the court may strike the brief, prohibit the party from filing another, and proceed as if the party did not file a brief. Id.
Accordingly, because this court informed appellant of the substantial defects in his brief, and the appellant failed to file an amended brief curing those defects, we strike appellant=s brief and dismiss the appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(a)(1), 38.9(a), 42.3(c); Newman v. Clark, 113 S.W.3d 622, 623 (Tex. App. BDallas 2003, no pet.).
PER CURIAM
PANEL D: GARDNER, WALKER, and MCCOY, JJ.
DELIVERED: February 15, 2007
[1]See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.