DISMISS; and Opinion Filed July 29, 2015. 

# S

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05
- 14
- 00913
- CV SHEIK TEHUTI , Appellant V. ATMOS ENERGY CORP , Appellee On Appeal from the 193rd Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC
- 13
- 12135 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Chief Justice Wright, Justice Brown, and Justice Stoddart Opinion by Justice Brown Sheik Tehuti appeals the trial court’s summary judgm ent in favor of Atmos Energy Corporation. Tehuti filed his brief on September 26, 2014. In a letter dated December 8, 2014, this Court notified Tehuti that his brief did not satisfy the requirements set forth in rule 38 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Pr ocedure. Specifically, we noted the brief did not contain (1) a concise statement of the case, the course of proceedings, and the trial court’s disposition of the case supported by record references, (2) a concise statement of the facts supported by recor d references, or (3) a succinct, clear, and accurate statement of the arguments in the body of the brief. We also noted the argument does not contain appropriate citations to the record. We instructed Tehuti to correct the deficiencies and to file an ame nded brief that complied with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38 on or before December 18, 2014.– 2

– On December 18, 2014, Tehuti filed another brief of equal length but again without a concise, coherent statement of the case or the course of proceedings. T he brief contains no citation to the trial court record, gives no succinct, clear, or accurate statement of the arguments , and provides no meaningful recitation of how the trial court erred, no reference to the appropriate standar d o f review and applicable law, and no meaningful application of the law to the facts of this case. Our appellate rules have specific requirements for briefing. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 38. These rules require an appellant to state concisely the complaint he may have, provide understan dable, succinct, and clear argument for why his complaint has merit in fact and in law, and cite and apply law that is applicable to the complaint being made along with record references that are appropriate. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 38.1(f), (h), and (i). Only w hen we are provided with proper briefing may we discharge our responsibility to review the appeal and make a decision that disposes of the appeal one way or the other. Bolling v. Farmers Branch Indep. Sch.
Dist ., 315 S.W.3d 893, 895 (Tex. App.―Dallas 2010 , no pet.). We are not responsible for identifying possible trial court error, searching the record for facts that may be favorable to a party’s position, or doing the legal research that might support a party’s contentions. Id . If we were to do so, eve n for a pro se litigant untrained in law, we would be abandoning our role as judges and become an advocate for that party. Id

. Because Tehuti has failed to comply with the briefing requirements of our appellate rules after having been given the opportunity to do so, we dismiss his appeal. See id . at 897.

140913F.P05 /Ada Brown/ ADA BROWN JUSTICE– 3

– 

# S

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT
SHEIK TEHUTI, Appellant
No. 05

- 14

- 00913

- CV V. ATMOS ENERGY CORP, Appellee On Appeal from the 193rd Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC

- 13

- 12135. Opinion delivered by Justice Brown , Chief Justice Wright and Justice Stoddart participating. In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the appeal is DISMISSED

. It is ORDERED that appellee ATMOS ENERGY CORP recover its costs of this appeal from appellant SHEIK TEHUTI.
Judg ment entered this 29th day of July, 2015.