Theodis Brown, Sr., Appellant, v. City of St. Louis and City of Kinloch, Respondent.

This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court. Opinion Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District Case Style: Theodis Brown, Sr., Appellant, v. City of St. Louis and City of Kinloch, Respondent. Case Number: 73109 Handdown Date: 03/17/1998 Appeal From: Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Hon. Patrick Clifford Counsel for Appellant: Theodis Brown, Sr. Counsel for Respondent: Robert L. Lyng and Ted L. Perryman Opinion Summary: Theodis Brown appeals the trial court's judgment entered pursuant to Section 287.490 RSMo 1994 affirming the final award in a proceeding before the Labor and Industrial Relation Commission. DISMISSED. Division Five holds: Rule 84.04 governs appellate briefs and their contents. Appellant's brief fails to comply in any respect with that rule. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. Citation: Opinion Author: PER CURIAM Opinion Vote: DISMISSED. Crahan, C.J., Teitelman, J., and Smith, Sr. J., concur. Opinion: Appellant, Theodis Brown, Sr., took an appeal to the Circuit Court of St. Louis County pursuant to Section 287.490 RSMo 1994 from Awards dated November 26, 1996 and Orders Dismissing Application for Review issued January 17, 1997 before the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission. Thereafter, on August 15, 1997, the trial court issued a judgment affirming the final award of the Commission in the matter. Brown appeals pro se from that judgment. Appellant has submitted a brief which fails to comply in any respect with the requirements of Rule 84.04 as to contents of briefs, including particularly his statement of facts, points relied on and argument. The record reflects no error

by the trial court. Compliance with Rule 84.04 is mandatory, and serious violations of that rule are grounds for dismissal of an appeal. Brancato v. Wholesale Tool Co., Inc., 950 S.W. 2d 551, 553 (Mo. App. E.D. 1997). While appellant has every right to proceed pro se, he is bound by the same rules of appellate procedure as lawyers and is not entitled to any indulgences that he would not have received if represented by counsel. Id. Accordingly, acting sua sponte, we hold that this appeal should be and hereby is dismissed. Separate Opinion: None This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court.