Case Title: BASILE S. DASKALAKIS V. WILLIAM B RESOR, BARBARA HAUGE, LANCE JOHNSON, ROBERT WRIGHTMAN, JOHN RESOR, SNAKE RIVER RANCH LLC, SNAKE RIVER ASSOCIATES, L.P., AND CRYSTAL SPRINGS RANCH, INC.,

Citation: 

Docket Number: S-10-0094

State: wyoming

Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

Date: 2010-09-30T00:00:00Z

Document:
BASILE S. DASKALAKIS V. WILLIAM B RESOR, BARBARA HAUGE, LANCE JOHNSON, ROBERT WRIGHTMAN, JOHN RESOR, SNAKE RIVER RANCH LLC, SNAKE RIVER ASSOCIATES, L.P., AND CRYSTAL SPRINGS RANCH, INC., 2010 WY 132239 P.3d 648Case Number: S-10-0094Decided: 09/30/2010
 
APRIL 
TERM, A.D. 2010

 
 
 
 
BASILE 
S. DASKALAKIS,Appellant (Plaintiff),v.WILLIAM B. RESOR, 
BARBARA HAUGE, LANCE JOHNSON, ROBERT WRIGHTMAN, JOHN RESOR, SNAKE RIVER RANCH 
LLC, SNAKE RIVER ASSOCIATES, L.P., and CRYSTAL SPRINGS RANCH, INC.,Appellees 
(Defendants).

 
 
Appeal 
from the District Court of Teton County

 
 

Representing 
Appellant:

Basile 
S. Daskalakis, Pro 
se

 
 

Representing 
Appellee:

Matthew 
E. Turner of Mullikin, Larson & Swift, LLC, Jackson, 
Wyoming

 
 
Before 
KITE, C.J., and GOLDEN, HILL, VOIGT, and BURKE, 
JJ.

 
 

GOLDEN, 
Justice.

 
 
[¶1]      Appellant Basile 
S. Daskalakis, pro se, appeals the district court's order granting 
summary judgment to Appellees, who are named in the caption in this appeal, in 
Appellant's action below which asserted various claims against Appellees, 
including claims for personal injury, excess utility charges, wrongful 
termination of employment, and wrongful eviction.  Although Appellees have 
responded to the substance of the appeal, to the extent they can make some sense 
of it, they raise a preliminary question concerning Appellant's failure to 
comply with the requirement of Rule 7.01(e)(2) of the Wyoming Rules of Appellate 
Procedure, that his brief contain a statement of the facts relevant to the 
issues presented for review with appropriate references to documents in the 
index of the transmitted record.  We find that Appellees' question is 
well-taken.  We have identified other instances of non-compliance with our 
appellate procedural rules in Appellant's brief, namely, his brief does not 
contain a table of cases alphabetically arranged and other authorities cited 
with references to the pages in the brief where they appear, W.R.A.P. 7.01(c); 
his brief does not contain any cogent argument and does not contain a concise 
statement of the applicable standard of review for each issue. W.R.A.P. 
7.01(f)(1) and (2).

 
 
[¶2]      The failure of 
Appellant to comply with these rule requirements is ground for such action as 
this Court deems appropriate, including affirmance of the district court's 
judgment. W.R.A.P. 1.03; Nathan v. 
American Global University, 2005 
WY 64, 113 P.3d 32 (Wyo. 
2005); MTM v. State, Dep't of Family 
Services, 2001 WY 61, 26 P.3d 1035 (Wyo. 2001); and Hamburg v. Heilbrun, 889 P.2d 967 (Wyo. 1995).  
Exercising our discretion under W.R.A.P. 1.03, we summarily affirm the district 
court's summary judgment order in favor of Appellees.