Appellee’s motion to strike granted, appellee’s motion for damages denied,

appeal dismissed, and Memorandum Opinion filed September 19, 2023.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-22-00635-CV

____________

IN THE INTEREST OF F.L.W. AND K.B.W., CHILDREN

On Appeal from the 310th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2021-01013

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This is an appeal from a judgment signed August 17, 2022. Appellant’s brief 

was originally due January 26, 2023, though he was ultimately given until May 18, 

2023 to file a brief. When he was given his final extension, he was instructed that 

failure to file his brief by that deadline would leave the appeal subject to dismissal 

without further notice for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b).

On May 18, 2023, appellant, proceeding pro se, tendered a brief but the brief 

failed to comply with the briefing requirements set forth in Texas Rule of Appellate 

Procedure 38.1. Most significantly, appellant failed to make any legal arguments 
2

to support reversal of the judgment, and the brief contained no citations to the record 

or to legal authorities. Tex. R. App. P. 38.1(h). On July 11, 2023, this court ordered 

appellant to file a brief complying with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38 within 

21 days, and further advised appellant that if he did not do so, the court could strike 

the brief, prohibit appellant from filing another brief, and proceed as if appellant had 

failed to file a brief, thus leaving the appeal subject to dismissal for want of 

prosecution without further notice. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a)(1).

Appellant filed another brief on August 1, 2023. That brief led to appellee 

filing a motion to strike the brief due to noncompliance with Rule 38. We conclude 

the motion has merit as appellant has failed to file a compliant brief. In particular, 

appellant provides no legal reason to set aside the judgment entered by the trial court. 

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.—Houston [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.—Houston 

[14th Dist.] 1999, no pet.); Kanow v. Brownshadel, 691 S.W.2d 804, 806 (Tex. 

App.—Houston [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, “the 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 
3

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.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1999, no pet.).

Accordingly, we grant appellee’s motion to strike, strike appellant’s nonconforming brief, and order the appeal dismissed. We further deny appellee’s 

motion for damages.

PER CURIAM

Panel Consists of Justices Wise, Zimmerer, and Wilson.