Case Name: Antoine ECHOLS, Sr., Appellant, v. Mark S. FREDMAN, Respondent
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 1996-12-17
Citations: 936 S.W.2d 238
Docket Number: No. 70355
Parties: Antoine ECHOLS, Sr., Appellant, v. Mark S. FREDMAN, Respondent.
Judges: Before RHODES RUSSELL, P.J., and SIMON and KAROHL, JJ.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Second Series
Volume: 936
Pages: 238–238

Head Matter:
Antoine ECHOLS, Sr., Appellant, v. Mark S. FREDMAN, Respondent.
No. 70355.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Four.
Dec. 17, 1996.
Antoine Echols, Sr., Lewisburg, PA pro se.
Edward S. Meyer, Jill K. Luft, Mark S. Fredman, St. Louis, for respondent.
Before RHODES RUSSELL, P.J., and SIMON and KAROHL, JJ.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Antoine Echols appeals from the dismissal of his legal malpractice claim for failure to state a cause of action against Mark S. Fred-man. Fredman complains that Echols' pro se brief fails to comply with the requirements of Rule 84.04 in that the points relied on in the briefs are vague and do not identify wherein and why the trial court erred, and further, the brief did not contain a fair and concise statement of the relevant facts. See Thummel v. King, 570 S.W.2d 679 (Mo.banc 1978). We agree.
In the exercise of our discretion, we have reviewed the record for plain error pursuant to Rule 84.13(c). We find no manifest injustice or miscarriage of justice. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. Accordingly, we affirm pursuant to Rule 84.16(b). .