Case Name: Kurt W. PONZAR, Appellant, and Sandy L. Ponzar, Plaintiff, v. Reginald P. BODEUX, Respondent
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2008-03-11
Citations: 247 S.W.3d 103
Docket Number: No. ED 90159
Parties: Kurt W. PONZAR, Appellant, and Sandy L. Ponzar, Plaintiff, v. Reginald P. BODEUX, Respondent.
Judges: Before MARY K. HOFF, P.J., SHERRI B. SULLIVAN, J., and GEORGE W. DRAPER III, J.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 247
Pages: 103–103

Head Matter:
Kurt W. PONZAR, Appellant, and Sandy L. Ponzar, Plaintiff, v. Reginald P. BODEUX, Respondent.
No. ED 90159.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Four.
March 11, 2008.
Kurt W. Ponzar, Weldon Springs, MO, for Appellant.
Daniel G. Tobben, Laura J. Gerdes, Clayton, MO, for Respondent.
Before MARY K. HOFF, P.J., SHERRI B. SULLIVAN, J., and GEORGE W. DRAPER III, J.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Kurt W. Ponzar (hereinafter, "Ponzar") appeals pro se from the trial court's grant of summary judgment entered in favor of Reginald P. Bodeux (hereinafter, "Attorney"). Ponzar raises one issue on appeal, claiming Attorney's negligence was the proximate cause of his damages and that Attorney faded to advise him of issues on appeal.
We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal. There is no genuine issue of material fact which would preclude entry of summary judgment. Rule 74.04(c)(3). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties only, setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).