MEMORANDUM OPINION

Opinion by Chief Justice CAROLYN WRIGHT.

Appellant seeks to appeal a take nothing judgment following a jury trial. The case involves personal injuries appellant allegedly sustained when appellee's vehicle collided with appellant's vehicle. Acting pro se, appellant timely perfected her appeal and filed a brief on October 21, 2016. On October 26, 2016, appellee filed a motion to strike appellant's brief as deficient. By order dated October 28, 2016, we denied appellee's motion, but informed appellant of the deficiencies in her brief and instructed her to file an amended brief that complied with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. We warned appellant that failure to file an amended brief might result in dismissal of this appeal. We have not received an amended brief, nor received further correspondence from appellant.

Briefs must adhere to the requirements for briefing found in Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, specifically rule 38.1. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1. This Court is less concerned with adherence to rigid rules about the form of a brief, but we closely examines the brief for compliance with rule 38.1. See Bolling v. Farmers Branch Indep. Sch. Dist. 315 S.W. 3rd 893, 895 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2010, no pet.). Pro se litigants are not granted preferential treatment regarding standard compliance with the rules and are held to the same standard as those represented by attorneys. Id. Without a proper brief, the appellate court is unable to fulfill its role in the appellate process. Id.

Appellant's brief is substantially deficient in form. Specifically, appellant's brief does not include a complete list of names and addresses of all parties to the trial court's judgment, including trial and appellate counsel. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1(a). The brief does not include a table of contents with references to pages included nor does it indicate the subject matter of issues being raised on appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 28.1(b). Additionally, the brief does not include an alphabetical list of authorities relied upon in the creation of the brief and direct the reader to the page where the authorities are cited. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1(c). Appellant's brief also lacks a concise statement of the case, the course of proceedings, and the trial court's disposition of the case with proper references to the record. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1(d). Most importantly, appellant has failed to provide a brief from which we can discern what question of law is to be answered, and has failed to provide the Court with existing legal authority applied to the facts of this case. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1(f), (g). Also missing is a statement of the relief appellant desires. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1(h), (i), (j). Lastly, appellant's brief does not include a certificate of compliance or a certificate of service. See TEX. R. APP. P. 9.4(i)(3); 9.5(e).

Because appellant has failed to comply with the briefing requirements of 38.1, we dismiss this appeal. See Bolling v. Farmers Branch Indep. Sch. Dist. 315 S.W. 3rd 893, 895 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2010, no pet.); TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1; 42.3(b).

JUDGMENT

In accordance with this Court's opinion of this date, the appeal is DISMISSED.

It is ORDERED that each party bear its own costs, if any, of this appeal.