Fourth Court of Appeals
San Antonio, Texas
MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-14-00721-CV
Andrés RAMOS Jr.,
Appellant
v.
Gigi CASTAÑEDA,
Appellee
From the County Court, Maverick County, Texas
Trial Court No. 3220
Honorable Ron Carr, Judge Presiding 1
PER CURIAM
Sitting: Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice
Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice
Jason Pulliam, Justice
Delivered and Filed: March 18, 2015
DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION
On January 23, 2015, we notified pro se Appellant Andrés Ramos Jr. that the brief filed on
January 20, 2015, failed to comply with Rule 38.1 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See
TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1. We recited some of the defects in his brief: e.g., no part of the brief contained
any citations to the record, the brief failed to list or cite any authorities to support Appellant’s
arguments, and the brief contained no proof of service. See id. R. 9.5(d), (e).
1
The Honorable David R. Saucedo, presiding judge of the Maverick County Court, recused himself. The Honorable
Ron Carr signed the judgment in the underlying cause.
04-14-00721-CV
We struck Appellant’s brief and ordered him to file an amended brief that corrected the
listed deficiencies and fully complied with the applicable rules. See, e.g., id. R. 9.4, 9.5, 38.1. We
warned Appellant that if the amended brief did not comply with our order, we could “strike the
brief, prohibit [Appellant] from filing another, and proceed as if [Appellant] had failed to file a
brief.” See id. R. 38.9(a); see also id. R. 38.8(a)(1) (authorizing this court to dismiss an appeal if
an appellant fails to timely file a brief).
On March 2, 2015, Appellant filed an amended brief. The amended brief contains an index
of authorities and other sections required by Rule 38.1 (e.g., Identity of Parties and Counsel, Table
of Contents), but it fails to comply with Rule 38.1. The brief makes a few references to Chapter
92 of the Texas Property Code, but otherwise provides no appropriate citations to authorities or to
the record. Contra TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1(i) (requiring “clear and concise argument for the
contentions made, with appropriate citations to authorities and to the record”). The argument
portion of the brief consists in its entirety of three sentences. It contains no citations to applicable
case law or to the record. Contra id.
Appellant’s brief is wholly inadequate to present any questions for appellate review. See
Ruiz v. State, 293 S.W.3d 685, 693 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2009, pet. ref’d); Robert L. Crill,
Inc. v. Bond, 76 S.W.3d 411, 423 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2001, pet. denied). We strike Appellant’s
amended brief and dismiss this appeal for want of prosecution. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(a)(1),
38.9(a), 42.3(b).
PER CURIAM
-2-
Andrés Ramos Jr. v. Gigi Castaneda
Combined Opinion