Roger L. Lott Appellant/s /s



# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

January 13, 2014

N o. 04-13-00531-CV

Roger L. LOTT

, Appellant

v.

First BANK

, Appellee

From the County Court At Law No. 10, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 372518

Honorable David J. Rodriguez, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

Appellant, Roger L. Lott, filed his “Amended Briefing” on January 8, 2014. The brief

does not comply with the requirements of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure in the

following respects:

(1) the brief does not contain a table of contents, T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 38.1(b);

(2) the brief does not contain an index of authorities, T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 38.1(c);

(3) the brief does not include a statement of the nature of the case and the course of the

proceedings, supported by references to the record, T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 38.1(d);

(4) the brief does not state concisely all issues or points presented for review, T EX

. R.

A PP

. P. 38.1(f);

(5) the brief does not contain a statement of facts supported by references to the record,

T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 38.1(g);

(6) the brief does not contain a summary of the argument, T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 38.1(h);

(7) the brief does not include a clear and concise argument for the contentions made with

appropriate citations to authorities and to the record, T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 38.1(i);

(8) the brief does not include an appendix containing the items specified in Rule 38.1(k),

T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 38.1(k); and(9) the brief does not contain a certificate of service, as required by Rule 9.5,

acknowledging that appellant served a copy of the document on all parties to the

proceeding. T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 9.5(a),(d),(e).

Appellant is advised that as a pro se litigant, he must comply with all applicable procedural rules,

and is held to the same standards as a licensed attorney. Paselk v. Rabun

, 293 S.W.3d 600, 611

(Tex. App.

— Texarkana 2009, pet. denied); Sweed v. City of El Paso

, 346 S.W.3d 679, 680 (Tex.

App.

— El Paso 2009, pet. denied). A pro se litigant is required to properly present his case on

appeal. Sweed

, 346 S.W.3d at 680.

Although only substantial compliance with Rule 38 is required, this court may order a

party to amend, supplement, or redraw a brief if it flagrantly violates rule 38.1. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 38.9(a). The court has determined that the brief defects described above constitute flagrant

violations of Rule 38.1.

Accordingly, we order Roger L. Lott to file a redrawn brief by January 28, 2014

. If the

redrawn brief does not comply with this order and correct the deficiencies listed above, we “may

strike the brief, prohibit [appellant] from filing another, and proceed as if [appellant] had failed

to file a brief.” See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 38.9(a); see also id. R. 38.8(a) (authorizing this court to

dismiss appeal if appellant fails to timely file brief).

lec

_________________________________ Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 13th day of January, 2014

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court