Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed October 14, 2004.
In The
Fourteenth Court of Appeals
____________
NO. 14-04-00349-CV
____________
JEROME F. WHITE, Appellant
V.
HARVEST CREDIT MANAGEMENT V,
a Colorado Limited Liability Corporation, Appellee
On Appeal from the County Civil Court at Law No. 1
Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 807,933
M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
This is an appeal from a default judgment signed March 10, 2004. Appellant=s brief was due June 21, 2004. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.6(a). No brief or motion for extension of time was filed. Accordingly on July 15, 2004, this court ordered that unless appellant submitted his brief, and a motion reasonably explaining why the brief was late, to the clerk of this court on or before August 16, 2004, the court would dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b).
On August 12, 2004, appellant, who is pro se, filed a letter with the court explaining that he had filed a brief in the trial court on April 5, 2004. Briefs on appeal are required to be filed with the clerk of the court of appeals. Appellant attached a copy of the document he refers to as a brief that was filed at the court below. The letter does not comply with the requirements for briefs contained in the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. Specifically, the brief is not in the correct format as required by Rule 9.4 and it does not contain the required contents listed in Rule 38.1. See Tex. R. App. P. 9.4, 38.1.
Accordingly, on August 19, 2004, the court granted appellant=s request for an extension of time to file a brief that conforms to the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. By order issued that date, the court informed appellant that unless he filed a brief in compliance with the rules with the clerk of this court on or before September 17, 2004, the Court would dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(c).
On September 16, 2004, appellant tendered a brief that did not comply with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. The brief was returned to appellant for correction. See Tex. R. App. P. 9.4(i) (permitting court to return nonconforming documents for correction). On September 23, 2004, appellant submitted another nonconforming brief, which was also returned for correction. On September 30, 2004, appellant filed a brief that complies with the rules of form. See Tex. R. App. P. 9.4. The brief fails to comply, however, with the briefing requirements set forth in Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.1. Most significantly, appellant has failed to make any legal arguments to support reversal of the judgment, and the brief contains no citations to the record or to legal authorities. Tex. R. App. P. 38.1(h).
While appellant complains about the unfairness of the judgment against him, he provides no legal reason to set aside the default judgment entered by the trial court. While we are not unsympathetic to appellant=s position, a point of error unsupported by citation of any legal authority presents nothing for the court to review. See Richard v. Cornerstone Constructors, Inc., 921 S.W.2d 465, 469 (Tex. App.CHouston [1st Dist.] 1996, writ denied). Pro se litigants are held to the same standards as licensed attorneys, and they must therefore comply with all applicable rules of procedure. Mansfield State Bank v. Cohn, 573 S.W.2d 181, 184‑85 (Tex. 1978) (holding that litigants who represent themselves must comply with procedures established by rules notwithstanding fact that they are not licensed attorneys); Sedillo v. Campbell, 5 S.W.3d 824, 829 (Tex. App.CHouston [14th Dist.] 1999, no pet.); Kanow v. Brownshadel, 691 S.W.2d 804, 806 (Tex. App.CHouston [1st Dist.] 1985, no writ).
If a party files a brief that does not comply with the rules, and that party files an amended brief that likewise does not comply with the rules, as here, Athe court may strike the brief, prohibit the party from filing another, and proceed as if the party had failed to file a brief.@ Tex. R. App. P. 38.9(a). Where a party fails to file a brief, Rule 38.8 allows the appellate court to dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a)(1); Harkins v. Dever Nursing Home, 999 S.W.2d 571, 573 (Tex. App.CHouston [14th Dist.] 1999, no pet.)
Accordingly, we strike appellant=s non-conforming brief and order the appeal dismissed.
PER CURIAM
Judgment rendered and Memorandum Opinion filed October 14, 2004.
Panel consists of Chief Justice Hedges and Justices Fowler and Seymore.