Summary
affirming judgment after concluding appellant waived all issues for inadequate briefing
Summary of this case from Baghvardani v. WilsonOpinion
No. 05-06-00605-CV
Opinion issued July 16, 2007.
On Appeal from the 44th District Court, Dallas County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. 05-00661-B.
Before Justices Wright, Bridges, and Mazzant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Roy Crouch appeals the trial court's summary judgment in favor of Continental Casualty Company. This Court, by order dated July 11, 2006, notified Crouch that his pro se brief did not comply with the rules of appellate procedure and ordered Crouch to file an amended brief that complied with rule 38.1 or his appeal might be dismissed. However, Crouch did not file an amended brief. Instead, Crouch filed an "Appellant Supplement Index" on July 18, 2006 and an "Appellant Response to Appellee Brief" in October 2006 that similarly failed to comply with the rules of appellate procedure.
We construe liberally pro se pleadings and briefs; however, we hold pro se litigants to the same standards as licensed attorneys and require them to comply with applicable laws and rules of procedure. Mansfield State Bank v. Cohn, 573 S.W.2d 181, 184-85 (Tex. 1978). To do otherwise would give a pro se litigant an unfair advantage over a litigant who is represented by counsel. Shull v. United Parcel Serv., 4 S.W.3d 46, 53 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1999, pet. denied). The law is well established that, to present an issue to this Court, a party's brief shall contain, among other things, a concise, nonargumentative statement of the facts of the case, supported by record references, and a clear and concise argument for the contention made with appropriate citations to authorities and the record. Tex. R. App. P. 38.1; McIntyre v. Wilson, 50 S.W.3d 674, 682 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2001, pet. denied). Bare assertions of error, without argument or authority, waive error. See Sullivan v. Bickel Brewer, 943 S.W.2d 477, 486 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1995, writ denied); see also Fredonia State Bank v. Gen. Am. Life Ins. Co., 881 S.W.2d 279, 284 (Tex. 1994) (appellate court has discretion to waive point of error due to inadequate briefing). When a party fails to adequately brief a complaint, he waives the issue on appeal. Devine v. Dallas County, 130 S.W.3d 512, 514 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2004, no pet.); Howell v. T S Commc'ns, Inc., 130 S.W.3d 515, 518 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2004, no pet.).
In his handwritten brief, supplemental index, and response to appellee's brief, Crouch asserts generally that the trial court erred in granting appellee's motion for summary judgment and denying Crouch's motion for new trial. However, Crouch has failed to provide us with argument, analysis, or authorities that make his appellate complaints viable. See Howell, 130 S.W.3d at 518. By failing to adequately brief his complaints, Crouch has waived our review of his complaints. See Sullivan, 943 S.W.2d at 486 (concluding appellant had waived points not supported by argument and authority). Accordingly, we need not further address Crouch's complaints.
We affirm the trial court's judgment.