Case ID: p3d_268/html/0890-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

2012 UT App 9
    James H. LARSEN, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Randall WRIGHT, Defendant and Appellee.
    No. 20110770-CA.
    Court of Appeals of Utah.
    Jan. 6, 2012.
    James H. Larsen, Provo, Appellant Pro Se.
    Peter C. Schofield, Orem, for Appellee.
    Before Judges MeHUGH, THORNE, and CHRISTIANSEN.
   DECISION

PER CURIAM:

11 James H. Larsen appeals the trial court's order dismissing his complaint. This is before the court on its own motion for summary disposition based on the lack of a substantial question for review. Larsen failed to respond to the motion. As a result of his failure to respond and the lack of a viable legal issue identified in his docketing statement, he has failed to identify a substantial question for review warranting further consideration by this court. See Utah R.App. P. 10. Absent a substantial issue for review, this court may summarily affirm a district court's order.

{ 2 Affirmed.