Opinion
No. 05-10-01399-CV
Opinion Filed October 26, 2011.
On Appeal from the 401st Judicial District Court, Collin County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. 401-01538-2010.
Before BRIDGES, RICHTER, and MURPHY.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Stacy Jackson, pro se appellant, complains of the trial court's entry of summary judgment in favor of Citibank (South Dakota), N.A. ("Citibank"). We affirm the trial court's judgment. The background of the case and the procedural posture are well known to the parties, and therefore we limit our recitation of the facts. We issue this memorandum opinion pursuant to Tex. R. App. P. 47.4 because the law to be applied in this case is well settled.
Citibank sued Jackson on a line of credit, alleging an amount due of $19,867.86 and attaching a copy of Jackson's account statement showing that balance owing. In response, Jackson filed only a general denial. Citibank thereafter filed a motion for summary judgment, attaching as evidence the affidavit of a Citibank representative and custodian of records. In addition to affiant's sworn statements, the representative authenticated twenty-nine pages of account records for Jackson. Jackson filed no evidence in opposition to the motion and did not deny owing the amount claimed. The trail court granted the motion, rendering judgment for Citibank in the amount of $19,867.86, plus post-judgment interest and costs of court. Jackson appealed.
In a statement of issues presented for our review, appellant states:
The trial judge failed to review the evidence which clearly shows that the evidence did not support appellee's claim and appellant requests de novo standard review of case. The trial judge issued summary judgment by submission without any viable documentation, evidence, or discovery to show that appellant applied for, opened, and used the account.
We note at the outset that pro se litigants are held to the same standards as attorneys and must comply with all applicable and mandatory rules of pleading and procedure. De Mino v. Sheridan, 176 S.W.3d 359, 369 n. 17 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2004, no pet.). To apply a different set of rules to pro se litigants would be to give an unfair advantage over litigants represented by counsel. Mansfield State Bank v. Cohn, 573 S.W.2d 181, 184-85 (Tex. 1978).
The Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure control the required contents and organization for an appellant's brief. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.1. One of those requirements is that an appellant's brief must concisely state all issues or points presented for review. Tex. R. App. P. 38.1(e). An issue presented in an appellant's brief is sufficient if it directs the reviewing court's attention to the error about which the complaint is made. Canton-Carter v. Baylor Coll. Of Med., 271 S.W.3d 928, 931 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2008, no pet.). The appellant's brief must also contain a clear and concise argument, including appropriate citations to authority and the record. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.1(h). Failure to cite legal authority or provide substantive analysis of the legal issue presented results in waiver of the complaint. Leyva v. Leyva, 960 S.W.2d 732, 734 (Tex. App.-El Paso 1997, no writ).
Similarly, failure to provide citations to the record also results in waiver of the issue on appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.1(i); 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 error due to inadequate briefing). It is appellant's burden to discuss her assertions of error. We have no duty — or even right — to perform an independent review of the record and applicable law to determine whether there was error. See Valdez v. Avita, 238 S.W.3d 843, 845 (Tex. App.-El Paso, 2007, no pet.). Were we to do so, even on behalf of a pro se appellant, we would be abandoning our role as neutral adjudicators and become an advocate for that party. See Plummer v. Reeves, 93 S.W.3d 930, 931 (Tex. App.-Amarillo 2003, pet. denied).
Jackson's brief does not contain any legal analysis or citation to the record, nor does it discuss her assertions of error. Thus, she has not identified an issue for review. See Fredonia State Bank, 881 S.W.2d at 284. Although Jackson was given an opportunity to correct the deficiencies in her brief, she failed to do so. Because Jackson has failed to comply with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38, she has waived her issues on appeal. See Divine v. Dallas Cnty, 130 S.W.3d 512, 513-514 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2004, no pet.) (holding failure to adequately brief complain waives issue on appeal). The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.