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 judgment 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 Procedure. 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 record 

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 amended 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. The 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 

standard of 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 TEX. R. APP. P. 38. 

These rules require an appellant to state concisely the complaint he may have, provide 

understandable, 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. TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1(f), (h), and (i). Only when 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, even 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–

Court of Appeals

S

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.

Judgment entered this 29th day of July, 2015.