Affirmed and Opinion Filed April 13, 2016 

S 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-14-01142-CV 

ERIC C. HALL, Appellant 

V. 

TEXAS WORKFORCE COMMISSION AND ABM, Appellees 

On Appeal from the 134th Judicial District Court 

Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. DC-11-14789 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before Chief Justice Wright, Justice Bridges, and Justice Evans 

Opinion by Justice Bridges 

This underlying lawsuit involves a challenge under the Texas Unemployment 

Compensation Act denying appellant Eric Hall, pro se, unemployment compensation. The trial 

court signed an order of dismissal with prejudice after Hall failed to appear for trial. In five 

issues, Hall argues (1) the order denying a motion to disqualify signed by a visiting judge is void 

as a matter of law; (2) all subsequent orders signed after the denial of the recusal motion are 

void; (3) the trial court abused its discretion by denying a motion for continuance; (4) the trial 

court abused its discretion by disregarding his motion for default judgment after appellee ABM 

failed to timely answer; and (5) the trial court abused its discretion by abating the case. We 

affirm the trial court’s judgment. Because the underlying facts are well-known to the parties and 
 –2– 

not necessary to our disposition of the appeal, we issue this memorandum opinion. TEX. R. APP.

P. 47.1. 

We begin by addressing appellees’ argument that Hall’s appeal should be dismissed or 

the judgment affirmed for failing to comply with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.1. 

We notified Hall by letter dated May 18, 2015 that his brief failed to comply with, among 

other things, rule 38.1(h) and 38.1(i). See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1(h) (brief does not contain 

succinct, clear, and accurate statement of the argument in the body of the brief); 38.1(i) 

(argument does not contain appropriate citations to the record). He filed an amended brief and 

corrected some of the deficiencies, such as including a table of contents, certificate of service, 

and adding some record citations. However, the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure require that 

an appellant’s brief “contain a clear and concise argument for the contentions made, with 

appropriate citations to authorities and to the record.” TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1(h); Rammah v. 

Abdeljaber, 235 S.W.3d 269, 275 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2007, no pet.). An issue on appeal 

unsupported by argument or citation to any legal authority presents nothing for the court to 

review. Strange v. Continental Cas. Co., 126 S.W.3d 676, 678 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2004, pet. 

denied). 

Hall raises five issues under “ISSUES PRESENTED.” After his “STATEMENT OF 

FACTS,” which contains only some citations to pleadings in the clerk’s record but no record 

citations supporting his other factual assertions, he provides the following “SUMMARY OF 

THE ARGUMENT”: 

Assignment of Judge Kent Sims 

The assignment of the Honorable Judge Kent Sims by the 

administrative Judge Murphy was clearly beyond the scope or 

intent of the statute in Texas Government Code Sec. 74.053. There 

was no notice of this assignment sent to any party at the time of the 

assignment. There was no notice of the hearing as could be 

scheduled by the assigned Judge Kent Sims. The party has a right 
 –3– 

to strike this visiting judge under the code. [Anderson v. City of 

Port Arthur, 2010 Tex. App. LEXIS 7706] The Appellant went to 

his computer and then filed strike under the Texas Government 

Code §74.053. The order denying the Disqualification creates the 

issue that all orders subsequently signed by Judge Tillery are 

therefore void. There are no waiver of rights on this issue. 

The “PRAYER” immediately follows the seven sentence summary of the argument. 

On appeal, as in trial, the pro se appellant must properly present his case. Strange, 126 

S.W.3d at 677–78 (“pro se litigant is held to the same standards as licensed attorneys and must 

comply with applicable laws and rules of procedure”). Hall has failed to present any arguments 

in support of issues three, four, and five, which challenge the trial court’s denial of his motion for 

continuance, his motion for default judgment, and the trial court’s abatement of the case. 

Accordingly, we conclude he has waived these complaints on appeal. Id. at 678. 

To the extent Hall is challenging Judge Sims’s authority to hear the recusal motion 

because he filed an objection based on lack of notice under Texas Government Code Annotated 

section 74.053, Hall’s issue is waived. Hall’s objection to Judge Sims was filed on June 11, 

2014, which was two days after Judge Sims ruled on the motion. An objection to an assigned 

judge is untimely if it is filed after the assigned judge makes any ruling in the case. In re 

Canales, 52 S.W.3d 698, 704 (Tex. 2001); In re S.N.Z., 421 S.W.3d 899, 907 (Tex. App.—

Dallas 2014, pet. denied). We overrule Hall’s first issue. Based on our disposition of Hall’s first 

issue, we need not consider whether the subsequent orders signed by Judge Tillery were void as 

a matter of law. Tex. R. App. P. 47.1. Hall’s second issue is overruled. 

 
 –4– 

We affirm the trial court’s judgment. 

141142F.P05 

 

/David L. Bridges/ 

DAVID L. BRIDGES 

JUSTICE 
 –5– 

S 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

JUDGMENT 

ERIC C. HALL, Appellant 

No. 05-14-01142-CV V. 

TEXAS WORKFORCE COMMISSION 

AND ABM, Appellees 

 On Appeal from the 134th Judicial District 

Court, Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. DC-11-14789. 

Opinion delivered by Justice Bridges. 

Chief Justice Wright and Justice Evans 

participating. 

 In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is 

AFFIRMED. 

 It is ORDERED that appellees TEXAS WORKFORCE COMMISSION AND ABM 

recover their costs of this appeal from appellant ERIC C. HALL. 

Judgment entered April 13, 2016.