Case Name: Ollie WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. Leonard PRATTE, Respondent
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2009-09-08
Citations: 297 S.W.3d 602
Docket Number: No. ED 91777
Parties: Ollie WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. Leonard PRATTE, Respondent.
Judges: Before GLENN A NORTON, P.J., MARY K. HOFF, J., and LAWRENCE E. MOONEY, J.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 297
Pages: 602–603

Head Matter:
Ollie WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. Leonard PRATTE, Respondent.
No. ED 91777.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Three.
Sept. 8, 2009.
Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied Nov. 9, 2009.
Ollie Williams, Pacific, MO, pro se.
Leonard Pratte, Bowling Green, MO, pro se.
Before GLENN A NORTON, P.J., MARY K. HOFF, J., and LAWRENCE E. MOONEY, J.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
The plaintiff, Ollie Williams, an inmate in the Missouri Department of Corrections, appeals pro se the judgment entered by the Circuit Court of Pike County, Associate Judge Division. The trial court dismissed with prejudice the plaintiffs petition against the defendant, corrections officer Leonard Pratte, for failure to prosecute.
The plaintiff has failed to follow the briefing requirements of Rule 84.04. Therefore, the plaintiff preserves nothing for appeal because he has not properly briefed his allegation that the trial court erroneously dismissed his suit for failure to prosecute, and he has not developed any argument supported by legal authority on that point. Rule 84.13(a); Houston v. Weisman, 197 S.W.3d 204, 206 (Mo.App. E.D.2006).
We have reviewed the plaintiffs brief and the record on appeal and find no error. An opinion would have no prece-dential value. We affirm the trial court's judgment. Rule 84.16(b)(5).