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 ch allenge under the Texas Unemployment Compensation Act denying appell ant Eric Hall, pro se, unemployment compensation. The trial court signed an order of dismissal with prejudice af ter Hall failed to appear for trial. In five issues, Hall argues (1) the orde r denying a motion to disqualify signed by a visiting judge is void as a matter of law; (2) all subs equent orders signed after the de nial 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 a ppeal, we issue this memorandum opinion. T EX
. R. A PP
. 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 T EX
. R. A PP
. P . 38.1(h) (brief does not contain succinct, clear, and accurate statement of th e argument in the body of the brief); 38.1(i) (argument does not contain appropri ate citations to the record). He filed an amended brief and corrected some of the deficiencies, such as incl uding a table of contents, certificate of service, and adding some record citations. However, the Texas Rules of A ppellate Procedure require that an appellant’s brief “contain a clear and concise argument for the contentions made, with appropriate citations to author ities and to the record.” T EX
. R. A PP
. 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 asserti ons, 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 visiti ng judge under the code. [ Anderson v. City of Port Arthur , 2010 Tex. App. LEXIS 7706] The Appellant went to his computer and then filed st rike 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 waiv er of rights on this issue. The “PRAYER” immediately follows the seve n sentence summary of the argument. On appeal, as in trial, the pro se ap pellant must properly present his case. Strange , 126 S.W.3d at 677–78 (“pro se litigant is held to the same standards as licen sed attorneys and must comply with applicable laws and rules of proced ure”). Hall has failed to present any arguments in support of issues three, four, and five, which ch allenge the trial court’s denial of his motion for continuance, his motion for default judgment, a nd the trial court’s abat ement of the case. Accordingly, we conclude he has wa ived these complaints on appeal. Id . at 678. To the extent Hall is challenging Judge Si ms’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 obj ection to Judge Sims was filed on June 11, 2014, which was two days after Judge Sims rule d on the motion. An objection to an assigned judge is untimely if it is filed after the a ssigned 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 firs t issue. Based on our di sposition of Hall’s first issue, we need not consider whether the subseq uent 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.