DR. MICHAEL (MIKHAIL) TYURIN, Appellant
STEPHEN D. SELINIDIS, Appellee
Appeal from the 234th District Court Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Case No. 2016-45823-B.
consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Jennings and
Dr. Michael (Mikhail) Tyurin, proceeding pro se, has filed a
notice of appeal of orders granting the motions of appellee
Stephen D. Selinidis to dismiss Tyurin's claims against
Selinidis and severing those claims into a separate
trial-court cause. Selinidis has filed a motion to strike
Tyurin's March 13, 2017 brief and dismiss the appeal.
dismiss the appeal.
submitted a brief to this Court before the appellate record
was complete. See Tex. R. App. P. 34.1 (appellate
record consists of clerk's record and, if necessary to
appeal, reporter's record), 38.6(a) (appellant must file
brief within thirty days after later of date clerk's
record or reporter's record filed). On January 24, 2017,
we notified Tyurin that his brief did not comply with the
requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.1, which
governs the contents and organization of an appellant's
brief, struck the brief, and directed him to file a compliant
Tyurin filed a second brief, Selinidis filed a motion to
strike the second brief and dismiss the appeal, asserting
that Tyurin had "failed to file a brief in compliance
with rule 38.1 and the Court's January 24, 2017
order." In response, Tyurin filed an "Objection and
Motion to Disregard Appellee's Motion to Dismiss Appeal,
" asserting, in part, that his brief provides "a
clear and concise argument for the contentions made, with
appropriate citations to authorities and the [s]upplemental
trial [c]ourt record."
appellate brief is 'meant to acquaint the court with the
issues in a case and to present argument that will enable the
court to decide the case . . . .'" Schied v.
Merritt, No. 01-15-00466-CV, 2016 WL 3751619, at *2
(Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] July 12, 2016, no pet.) (mem.
op.) (quoting Tex.R.App.P. 38.9). The Texas Rules of
Appellate Procedure, therefore, "have specific
requirements for briefing that require, among other things,
that an appellant provide a statement of facts, which
includes references to the record, and an argument that is
clear and concise with appropriate citations to authorities
and the record." Holz v. U.S. Corp., No.
05-13-01241-CV, 2014 WL 6555024, at *1 (Tex. App.-Dallas Oct.
23, 2014, no pet.) (mem. op.) (citing Tex.R.App.P.
38.1(g)(i)). And, a brief must state concisely the issues
presented for review. Tex.R.App.P. 38.1(f). "An issue
presented for appellate review is sufficient if it directs
the reviewing court's attention to the error about which
the complaint is made." Canton-Carter v. Baylor
Coll. of Med., 271 S.W.3d 928, 931 (Tex. App.-Houston
[14th Dist.] 2008, no pet.) (citing Tex.R.App.P. 38.1(f)). An
appellant also should explain how the law in the cited
authorities applies to the facts of the case and supports the
appellant's arguments on appeal. See Hernandez v.
Hernandez, 318 S.W.3d 464, 466 (Tex. App.-El Paso 2010,
no pet.) (citations omitted); San Saba Energy, L.P. v.
Crawford, 171 S.W.3d 323, 338 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th
Dist.] 2005, no pet.) (citations omitted).
appellant's brief fails to contain a clear and concise
argument for the contentions made with appropriate citations
to legal authorities, it is not this Court's duty to
research the law that may support appellant's contentions
or review the appellate record for facts to support those
contentions. See Canton-Carter, 271 S.W.3d at
931-32. Although we construe an appellate brief liberally, a
party proceeding pro se must comply with all applicable
procedural rules. Green v. Midland Mortg. Co., 342
S.W.3d 686, 692 n.7 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2011, no
pet.) (citing Harris v. Showcase Chevrolet, 231
S.W.3d 559, 561 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2007, no pet.)). A pro se
litigant is "not exempt from the rules of
procedure." Wheeler v. Green, 157 S.W.3d 439,
444 (Tex. 2005) (citing Mansfield State Bank v.
Cohn, 573 S.W.2d 181, 184-85 (Tex. 1978)).
brief does not provide a concise statement of the issues
presented for review; a concise statement, without argument,
of the facts pertinent to the issues presented; a succinct
and clear summary of his arguments on appeal; or "a
clear and concise argument for the contentions made, with
appropriate citations to authorities and to the record."
See Tex. R. App. P. 38.1(f), (g), (h), (i). Although
purporting to challenge the trial court's orders granting
Selinidis's motions to dismiss and motion for severance,
Tyurin does not develop any legal arguments to set aside the
trial court's orders or support his arguments with
citations to the trial court record. See, e.g.,
Jones v. Shipley, 508 S.W.3d 766, 768 (Tex.
App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2016, pet. denied) (discussing
appellate court's review of dismissal of claims under
Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 91a); Mallory v. Arctic
Pipe Inspection Co., No. 01-14-00104-CV, 2014 WL 701123,
at *6 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] Feb. 20, 2014, pet.
denied) (mem. op.) (discussing appellate court's review
of order granting motion to sever claims). In sum, Tyurin has
not corrected the deficiencies in his brief as directed in
this Court's order and has not provided a brief that
complies with rule 38.1.
here, an appellant files a brief that does not comply with
the rules and then files an amended brief that also does not
comply, "the court may strike the brief, prohibit the
[appellant] from filing another, and proceed as if the
[appellant] had failed to file a brief." Tex.R.App.P.
38.9(a); see Clemens v. Allen, 47 S.W.3d 26, 28
(Tex. App.-Amarillo 2000, no pet.) (citing Inpetco, Inc.
v. Tex. Am. Bank/Hous., N.A., 729 S.W.2d 300, 300 (Tex.
1987)). When an appellant fails to file a brief, we may
dismiss his appeal for want of prosecution. Tex.R.App.P.
38.8(a)(1). Accordingly, we grant Selinidis's motion,
strike Tyurin's Brief on the Merits, filed on March 13,
2017, and dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P.
42.3(b), 43.2(f). We dismiss all other pending motions as
See Tex. R. Civ. P. 91a
(providing trial court may dismiss claim on ground claim has
no basis in law or ...