Court of Appeals of Texas, Fifth District, Dallas
SAMUEL T. RUSSELL, Appellant
DALLAS COUNTY, CITY OF DALLAS, DALLAS INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, DALLAS COUNTY COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT, PARKLAND HOSPITAL DISTRICT, AND DALLAS COUNTY SCHOOL EQUALIZATION FUND, Appellees
Appeal from the 160th Judicial District Court Dallas County,
Texas Trial Court Cause No. TX-17-00880
Justices Whitehill, Schenck, and Richter 
sued appellant Samuel T. Russell for unpaid property taxes.
The trial court rendered judgment against Russell after a
bench trial. He appeals pro se and complains principally
about the trial judge's failure to recuse himself.
Because Russell didn't preserve his recusal argument in
the trial court and raises no other meritorious issue, we
affirm the trial court's judgment in this memorandum
sued Russell and two other defendants for unpaid property
taxes relating to real property in Dallas.
acting pro se, answered and filed a document called
"Defendant's Countersuit" in which he
complained that appellees had obtained a continuance without
giving him notice and without informing the court that
appellees and Russell had reached a "pre-arranged
payment agreement." The countersuit appears to request
judgment on the parties' alleged agreement, so we
construe it as a counterclaim.
days before trial, Russell filed a summary judgment motion.
trial court held a one-day bench trial and signed a judgment
in appellees' favor that same day. The judgment awarded
appellees a total of about $20, 300.
presents three issues, but he repeats some of his arguments
under more than one issue. Thus, we opt to divide our
analysis according to the errors Russell attempts to
1. The trial judge erred by not recusing himself.
2. The trial judge erred by not ruling on Russell's
counterclaim or ...