context: Dale J. Burke appeals the district court's adverse grant of summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. SS 1983 action. We dismiss the appeal because Burke's brief completely fails to meet the requirements of Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 28(a).
citation_a.signal: see
citation_a.identifier: 806 F.2d 801, 804
citation_a.parenthetical: pro se litigants are not excused from compliance with procedural law
citation_a.sentence: See Carter v. Lutheran Med. Ctr., 87 F.3d 1025, 1026 (8th Cir.1996) (per curiam) (dismissing pro se appeal where brief presented no question for court to decide; among other shortfalls, brief did not provide statement of issues presented for review or identify any basis of alleged error by district court); Brown v. Frey, 806 F.2d 801, 804 (8th Cir.1986) (pro se litigants are not excused from compliance with procedural law); cf. Puckett v. Cook, 864 F.2d 619, 620 n. 2 (8th Cir.1989) (to extent appellant was challenging dismissal of federal claims, he failed to show precisely and with reference to record why findings were clearly wrong, and this court would not search record for error relative to claims). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal, and we deny Burke’s pending motion.
citation_b.signal: cf.
citation_b.parenthetical: to extent appellant was challenging dismissal of federal claims, he failed to show precisely and with reference to record why findings were clearly wrong, and this court would not search record for error relative to claims
citation_b.sentence: See Carter v. Lutheran Med. Ctr., 87 F.3d 1025, 1026 (8th Cir.1996) (per curiam) (dismissing pro se appeal where brief presented no question for court to decide; among other shortfalls, brief did not provide statement of issues presented for review or identify any basis of alleged error by district court); Brown v. Frey, 806 F.2d 801, 804 (8th Cir.1986) (pro se litigants are not excused from compliance with procedural law); cf. Puckett v. Cook, 864 F.2d 619, 620 n. 2 (8th Cir.1989) (to extent appellant was challenging dismissal of federal claims, he failed to show precisely and with reference to record why findings were clearly wrong, and this court would not search record for error relative to claims). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal, and we deny Burke’s pending motion.