Mathisen v. Becker-Johner

                                                                               FILED
                                                                       IN THE OFFICE OF THE
                                                                    CLERK OF SUPREME COURT
                                                                         DECEMBER 15, 2023
                                                                     STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA




                  IN THE SUPREME COURT
                  STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

                                 

Kelly Mathisen and Char Mathisen,                      Plaintiffs and Appellees
      v.
Marvin Becker-Johner,                                Defendant and Appellant

                                No. 20230263

Appeal from the District Court of McKenzie County, Northwest Judicial
District, the Honorable Daniel S. El-Dweek, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

Per Curiam.

Thomas E. Kalil, Williston, ND, for plaintiffs and appellees.

Marvin Becker-Johner, self-represented, Watford City, ND, defendant and
appellant.
                        Mathisen v. Becker-Johner
                              No. 20230263

Per Curiam.

[¶1] Marvin Becker-Johner appeals from a district court order granting a
motion for summary judgment in favor of the Mathisens after he failed to
respond to the motion. Becker-Johner contends the court erred because he had
previously responded to similar motions and the judgment fails to adequately
define the easement’s boundaries. Becker-Johner’s appellate brief does not
include a legal argument, does not include any supporting authorities for his
assertions, fails to provide any reference to the evidentiary record, and does
not contain the minimum requirements provided in N.D.R.App.P. 28. See State
v. Noack, 

, 

 (“[A] brief must contain a statement
of the issues presented for review; a statement of the facts and, where those
facts are disputed, references to the evidentiary record supporting the
appellant’s statement of the facts; and the appellant’s legal argument,
including the authorities on which the appellant relies.”). We summarily affirm
under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(8).

[¶2] Jon J. Jensen, C.J.
     Daniel J. Crothers
     Lisa Fair McEvers
     Jerod E. Tufte
     Douglas A. Bahr




                                      1