Case Name: William THOMPSON, Appellant, v. James PURKETT and Phyllis Byland, Respondents
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2003-06-17
Citations: 108 S.W.3d 725
Docket Number: No. ED 81516
Parties: William THOMPSON, Appellant, v. James PURKETT and Phyllis Byland, Respondents.
Judges: Before PAUL J. SIMON, P.J. and GARY M. GAERTNER, Sr. and KATHIANNE KNAUP CRANE, JJ.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 108
Pages: 725–726

Head Matter:
William THOMPSON, Appellant, v. James PURKETT and Phyllis Byland, Respondents.
No. ED 81516.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Two.
June 17, 2003.
William T. Thompson, Farmington, MO, pro se.
Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Stephen D. Hawke, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, MO, for respondent.
Before PAUL J. SIMON, P.J. and GARY M. GAERTNER, Sr. and KATHIANNE KNAUP CRANE, JJ.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
William Thompson (appellant), pro se, appeals the judgment denying his petition for declaratory judgment. On appeal, appellant contends the trial court erred in dismissing his petition for declaratory judgment upon its own motion: (1) citing "fail[ure] to allege grounds upon which relief can be granted; and (2) while there still existed a justiciable controversy regarding the respective rights and duties of the parties."
We have reviewed the record on appeal and the briefs of the parties and find no error of law. An extended opinion reciting detailed facts and restating principles of law would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum for the use of the parties only setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).