Ott Law Firm Agent-Safe Plain Text
Official source remains authoritative.

Case: Ronald L. Satterlee Private Citizen (28 U.S.C. 1746(1)) all rights reserved, c/o HC 71 Box 259-A, Ava, Missouri, Non-Domestic, Missouri State, Appellant
vs.
County of Douglas Assessor, Respondent
Case Number: SD31028
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District
Decision Date: Unknown
Outcome: dismissed
Practice Area: other
Canonical URL: https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/ronald-l-satterlee-private-citizen-28-usc-17461-all-rights-reserved-co-hc-d31028
Official Source URL: https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=47688

---
## Opinion

Ronald L. Satterlee   ) 
Private         Citizen                                    )         
(28 U.S.C. 1746(1))   ) 
all rights reserved,   ) 
c/o HC 71 Box 259-A       ) 
Ava,         Missouri,                                             )         
Non-Domestic, Missouri State,          )         
      ) 
Appellant,       ) 
      ) 
         vs.                                             )         No.         SD31028         
      )   
County of Douglas   ) Opinion filed: 
Assessor,                                                      )         July         5,         2011         
      ) 
                  Respondent.                  )         
 
APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF DOUGLAS COUNTY, MISSOURI 
 
Honorable John G. Moody, Judge 
 
(Before Barney, P.J., Lynch, J., and Burrell, J. ) 
 
DISMISSED
.  
 PER CURIAM.  Ronald L. Satterlee ("Appellant"), who appears before this 
Court pro se, appeals from the "JUDGMENT OF DISMISSAL" of his 
"COMPLAINT UNDER RSMO 610 FOR WILLFUL FAILURE TO COMPLY" filed 

 
 
2
 
against the Douglas County Assessor's Office ("Respondent").
1
  Based on the 
pleadings and arguments before it, the trial court concluded that Appellant's 
"complaint fail[ed] to state a cause of action" and dismissed his case.  Appellant 
thereafter filed this appeal.  
 Appellant's brief fails to comply with almost every applicable provision of 
Rule 84.04 which recites the form and content necessary for a brief in this 
Court.
2
  His jurisdictional statement fails to comply with Rule 84.04(b); his 
statement of facts fails to comply with Rule 84.04(c); his points relied on fail to 
comply with Rule 84.04(d); his argument fails to comply with Rule 84.04(e); 
and his appendix fails to comply with Rule 84.04(h).  "'A failure to substantially 
comply with Rule 84.04 preserves nothing for appellate review.'"  Call v. 
Branson Enterprises, L.L.C., 97 S.W.3d 541, 543 (Mo.App. 2003) (quoting 
Brumfield v. Div. of Emp. Sec., 54 S.W.3d 741, 742 (Mo.App. 2001)). 
 While we are mindful that Appellant appears before this Court pro se, all 
parties, whether or not represented by an attorney, are bound by the same 
rules of procedure.  Elkins v. Elkins, 257 S.W.3d 617, 618 (Mo.App. 2008); 
see Brown v. Wheatley, 306 S.W.3d 664, 665 (Mo.App. 2010).  "It is not the 
function of this court to search the record to identify possible errors and to 
research issues so revealed."  Satterlee v. U.S., 862 S.W.2d 365, 366 (Mo.App. 
                                      
 
1
 Respondent did not file a responsive brief in this matter, nor was it required 
to do so.  "'While there is no penalty prescribed for the failure to file a brief, we 
are required to decide the case without the benefit of that party's authorities 
and points of view.'"  Slaughter v. Dir. of Revenue, 997 S.W.2d 132, 132 n.1 
(Mo.App. 1999) (quoting Fitzgerald v. Dir. of Revenue, 922 S.W.2d 478, 479 
n.3 (Mo.App. 1996)). 
 
2
 All rule references are to Missouri Court Rules (2010). 

 
 
3
 
1993).  "Allegations of error not properly briefed shall not be considered in any 
civil appeal."  Call, 97 S.W.3d at 543 (quoting Brumfield, 54 S.W.3d at 742) 
(internal quotation omitted); Rule 84.13(a).  Appellant's brief fails to preserve 
anything for appellate review. 
 All pending motions are now denied as moot.  The appeal is dismissed. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Appellant appears Pro Se 
Respondent's attorney:  Christopher D. Wade