as a result of filing numerous suits and appeals due to filing affidavits of indigence at all court levels, this Court finds that an appropriate sanction to prevent [Akinwamide] from filing further groundless suits is paying $500 to the Clerk of the Court and $2500 to the Defendants to cover reasonable expenses and. costs, including reasonable attorney’s fees. We conclude that, to the extent the trial court’s sanctions order does not state with sufficient specificity the rationale behind the sanctions imposed, the trial court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law do supply the necessary particulars, and any deficiency in the sanctions order does not constitute reversible error. See Univ. of Tex. at Arlington v. Bishop, 997 S.W.2d 350, 355-56 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 1999, pet. denied) (<HOLDING>). We hold that thé trial court did not abuse
holding that a trial courts judgment must comply with the statutory requirement that the judgment contain written findings of fact and conclusions of law holding that the district court committed reversible error by imposing criminal sanctions in a civil proceeding which did not afford the contemnor the procedural protections the constitution requires for the imposition of criminal contempt sanctions holding sanctions order was too general to support award holding sanctions order not final where the amount of sanctions had not yet been determined holding that while sanctions order did not meet specificity requirement of section 10005 trial courts findings of fact and conclusions of law supplied necessary particulars and thus deficient sanctions order did not constitute reversible error