Opinion
05-22-00039-CV
09-29-2023
TRACEY B. THOMPSON, Appellant v. MARTIN F. GAINES, Appellee
On Appeal from the 101st Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC-19-09781
Before Justices Nowell, Goldstein, and Breedlove
MEMORANDUM OPINION
BONNIE LEE GOLDSTEIN, JUSTICE
Pro se appellant Tracey B. Thompson appeals the trial court's grant of a no-evidence summary judgment in favor of appellee Martin F. Gaines. We affirm in this memorandum opinion. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(A).
BACKGROUND
Thompson sued Gaines for personal injuries and property damage resulting from an automobile collision that occurred on September 5, 2018. Thompson initiated the lawsuit on July 12, 2019, and on March 29, 2021, Gaines filed a no-evidence motion for summary judgment, asserting that an "adequate time for discovery" had passed and that Thompson "failed to respond to discovery propounded by" Gaines.
Gaines asserted that there was no evidence that: (1) Gaines breached any legal duty to Thompson; (2) an alleged breach of duty by Gaines proximately caused damages to Thompson's person; (3) an alleged breach of duty by Gaines proximately caused damages to Thompson's vehicle or property; and (4) Gaines committed any alleged negligent act or omission with a state of mind that justifies exemplary or punitive damages." The record reflects the hearing on Gaines' no-evidence motion for summary judgment was set on January 5, 2022. The record does not reflect, and Thompson does not advise, that she filed a response to the no-evidence motion for summary judgment. On January 14, 2022, the trial court granted Gaines' no-evidence motion for summary judgment in its entirety, dismissing Thompson's claims with prejudice. This appeal timely followed.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
We review the trial court's summary judgment de novo. Provident Life &Accident Ins. Co. v. Knott, 128 S.W.3d 211, 215 (Tex. 2003). We review a no-evidence summary judgment under the same legal sufficiency standard used to review a directed verdict. Timpte Indus., Inc. v. Gish, 286 S.W.3d 306, 310 (Tex. 2009). We consider the evidence proffered by the nonmovant in the light most favorable to her. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Rodriguez, 92 S.W.3d 502, 506 (Tex. 2002). But "[w]hen the evidence offered to prove a vital fact is so weak as to do no more than create a mere surmise or suspicion of its existence, the evidence is no more than a scintilla and, in legal effect, is no evidence." King Ranch, Inc. v. Chapman, 118 S.W.3d 742, 755 (Tex. 2003) (quoting Kindred v. Con/Chem, Inc., 650 S.W.2d 61, 63 (Tex. 1983)). To defeat a no-evidence summary judgment, the nonmovant is required to produce evidence that raises a genuine issue of material fact on each challenged element of its claim. Gish, 286 S.W.3d at 310; see also TEX. R. CIV. P. 166A(I).
ANALYSIS
We conclude that Thompson's appellate brief, as supplemented three times, is inadequate. "[W]e hold pro se litigants to the same standards as licensed attorneys and require them to comply with applicable laws and rules of procedure." In re N.E.B., 251 S.W.3d 211, 211-12 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2008, no pet.). "The failure to adequately brief an issue, either by failing to specifically argue and analyze one's position or provide authorities and record citations, waives any error on appeal." In re B.A.B., 124 S.W.3d 417, 420 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2004, no pet.). Thompson's appellant's brief, thrice supplemented, contains no argument explaining how the summary-judgment evidence raises genuine fact issues on the elements that Gaines challenged in his no-evidence motion for summary judgment. In sum, Thompson's brief, as supplemented, presents nothing for us to review. Thompson has waived her sole issue on appeal. See In re N.E.B., 251 S.W.3d at 212 ("When a party fails to adequately brief a complaint, he waives the issue on appeal.").
Thompson's appeal suffers from another fatal flaw. The appellate record does not contain her summary-judgment response. Thompson produced no evidence to raise a genuine issue of material fact on each challenged element of the claim. Indeed, the record shows no response was filed and no sworn or certified documents were submitted as summary-judgment proof. TEX. R. CIV. P. 166A(F); Holmes v. S. Methodist Univ., No. 05-11-01178-CV, 2013 WL 1857932, at *3 (Tex. App.- Dallas May 1, 2013, no pet.) (mem. op.). Because Thompson failed to respond or produce authenticated summary judgment proof, she did not produce any summary judgment evidence raising a genuine issue of material fact. It was Thompson's burden to present a sufficient clerk's record to permit us to review her complaint. See Enter. Leasing Co. of Houston v. Barrios, 156 S.W.3d 547, 549 (Tex.2004) (per curiam) ("[Appellant] bears the burden to bring forward the record of the summary judgment evidence to provide appellate courts with a basis to review his claim of harmful error.").
Because the record does not contain Thompson's summary-judgment response, and she makes no challenge to the sufficiency of appellee's no-evidence motion for summary judgment, we must affirm. Bouie v. Kirkland's Stores, Inc., No. 05-12-00453-CV, 2013 WL 4033645, at *2 (Tex. App.-Dallas Aug. 8, 2013, no pet.) (mem. op.) ("Absent a timely response, a trial court must grant a no-evidence summary judgment motion that meets the requirements of rule 166a(i)."). We conclude that the trial court did not err by granting summary judgment.
CONCLUSION
We affirm the trial court's judgment.
JUDGMENT
In accordance with this Court's opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED.
It is ORDERED that appellee MARTIN F. GAINES recover his costs of this appeal from appellant TRACEY B. THOMPSON.