DISMISS and Opinion Filed May 9, 2022 

# S

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-21-00818-CV ESTHER ATIGOGO, Appellant V. TOWNS OF CHAPEL HILL, Appellee On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 7 Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 007-03182-2021 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Chief Justice Burns, Justi ce Molberg, and Justice Goldstein Opinion by Chief Justice Burns After reviewing appellant’s pro se brief, we notifie d her that her brief was deficient and provided a detailed explan ation of why her brief did not meet the requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38. We noted that among other things, appellant failed to provide a statem ent of facts and failed to provide a clear and concise argument with appr opriate citations to authoritie s or to the record. We directed appellant to file an amended br ief and cautioned her that failure to do so might result in the dismissal of the appe al without further notice. Although given the opportunity to file a corrected br ief, appellant declined to do so.–2– An appellant’s brief must substantially comply with the Rules of Appellate Procedure—even if the appellant is pro se. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 38.9; Washington v. Bank of N.Y ., 362 S.W.3d 853, 854 (Tex. App—Dallas 2012, no pet.). As with other error-preservation requirements, “[o]ur pro cedural [briefing] rules are technical, but not trivial.” Burbage v. Burbage , 447 S.W.3d 249, 258 (Tex. 2014) (discussing practical importance of preservation requirements). The formal briefing requirements in the Rules of Appellate Procedure are intended to ensure, among other things, that an appella te court has the information necessary to resolve the relevant issues while maintaining its role as a neutral adjudicator. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 38.9; see Ihnfeldt v. Reagan , No. 02-14-00220-CV, 2016 WL 7010922, at *9 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Dec. 1, 2016, pet. denied ) (mem. op.). Thus, to substantially comply with the Rules of Appellate Proce dure, an appellant’s brief must, at a minimum, (1) not “flagrantly violat[e]” the formal briefing requirements; and (2) present the issues, facts, and legal author ities so as to “acquaint the court with the issues in [the] case and ... enable the court to decide the case.” T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 38.9; see Horton v. Stovall , 591 S.W.3d 567, 569–70 (Tex. 2019) (per curiam). We construe appellate brie fs “liberally, but reasonably” so that the right to appeal is not unnecessarily lost by waiver, and we will “not dismiss an appeal for a procedural defect whenever any arguable interpretation of the rules of appellate procedure would preserve the appeal.” Horton, 591 S.W.3d at 569–70; Ryland Enter., Inc. v. Weatherspoon , 355 S.W.3d 664, 665 (Tex. 2011) (per curiam)–3– (quoting Verburgt v. Dorner , 959 S.W.2d 615, 616 (Tex . 1997)). Here, however, appellant failed to substantia lly comply with the rules; she flagrantly violated the briefing requirements, and her violations prevent us from resolving the merits of the appeal. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 38.8 (a)(1); 42.2(b), (c); Bolling v. Farmer’s Branch I.S.D ., 315 S.W.3d 893, 897 (Tex. App— Dallas 2010, no pet.).

210818F.P05 /Robert D. Bu r ns, III / ROBERT D. BURNS, III CHIEF JUSTICE–4– 

# S

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT ESTHER ATIGOGO, Appellant
No. 05-21-00818-CV V. TOWNS OF CHAPEL HILL, Appellee On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 7, Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 007-03182- 2021. Opinion delivered by Chief Justice Burns. Justices Molberg and Goldstein participating. In accordance with this Court’s opi nion of this date, the appeal is DISMISSED

. Judgment entered May 9, 2022