Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, No. BC385168 Soussan G. Bruguera, Judge.
Ronald Felix Wilson, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant.
No appearance for Respondent.
Judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.
Appellant Ronald Wilson appeals from a judgment in favor of respondent Doris Middleton.
FACTS
Wilson and Middleton are neighbors who have a history of conflict. On February 8, 2006, they argued in front of Wilson’s home while he was watering his lawn. Wilson reported to the police that Middleton assaulted him and hit him in the head. He sued her on February 7, 2008, for an alleged head injury, contending it resulted in lost wages, general damages, medical expenses and loss of earning capacity.
In a bench trial, Wilson testified that Middleton hit him twice in the head with her closed fist while he was trying to back away from her. Wilson also presented testimony from his next door neighbor, Winifred Garrett, who confirmed that the two exchanged angry words and she saw Middleton hit Wilson in the head. Middleton denied the assault in her trial testimony, stating that Wilson fell into the bushes when she confronted him and he sprayed her with his hose. Another neighbor, Don Doby, testified that he saw Middleton “raising Cain” with Wilson, who fell in the bushes when he backed up and tripped over his water hose.
The trial court issued its ruling on November 2, 2009 as follows:
“The Court finds that plaintiff failed to carry his burden as to liability in that whatever altercation that took place between plaintiff and defendant more than three and a half years ago in February of 2006 was NOT an assault but another event in the long history of conflicts and/or perceived conflicts Mr. Wilson has had and continues to have with a great number of his neighbors.
Judgment is ordered for the defendant Doris Gaye Middleton and against plai[n]tiff Ronald Felix Wilson. The plaintiff shall recover nothing. [¶] The plaintiff is admonished that this action was frivolous and harassing in nature.”
Wilson timely appealed and submitted an opening brief on July 14, 2010. No respondent’s brief has been filed.
DISCUSSION
Wilson does not offer any supportable argument to warrant reversal of the judgment. Instead, he repeatedly asserts that Middleton’s actions constituted an assault against him under the law, a claim which relies on evidence that is inadmissible hearsay (e.g., statements contained in the police report or hospital records made by Wilson to the authorities), not in the record (e.g., reference to Wilson’s conflicts with other neighbors) or contradicted by other testimony. Indeed, Wilson dismisses the testimony provided by Middleton and Don Doby at trial, which the trial court found credible. We do not evaluate the credibility of the witnesses but defer to the trial court’s conclusion. (Lenk v. Total-Western, Inc. (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 959, 968.)
Wilson further contends that the trial court exhibited bias, passion and prejudice against him, as shown by the adverse judgment and its publication of his medical records in open court. Wilson also claims the trial court barred his witness, Winifred Garrett, from completing her testimony. There is no legal support for Wilson’s contention of bias, passion or prejudice. The cases relied upon by Wilson relate only to excessive damages awards and are not applicable here. In any case, our review of the record shows that Wilson agreed to allow the trial court and Middleton to see his psychiatric records. Nor does the record support Wilson’s claim regarding his witness, Garrett. The record demonstrates that Garrett was released without objection. Finally, the trial court’s adverse ruling or judgment against Middleton, without more, does not warrant reversal.
In short, Wilson has not met his burden on appeal, which is to show prejudicial error. (State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Pietak (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 600, 610 [the trial court’s ruling is presumptively correct, and the burden of affirmatively demonstrating error is on the appellant].) While we are not required to make an independent, unassisted study of the record in search of error, we nevertheless read the entire record and have discovered no error in the trial court’s ruling. (McComber v. Wells (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 512, 522-523.)
Wilson urges us to review exhibits which were “admitted in evidence, refused, or lodged but that were not copied in the clerk’s transcript” below, but fails to explain what these exhibits are or how or why they are relevant to the matter at hand. Thus, the request to lodge exhibits is denied.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: FLIER, Acting P. J., GRIMES, J.