Summary
holding that all of pro se appellant's issues were waived for inadequate briefing and affirming the judgment
Summary of this case from Muthukumar v. Santa Rosa ApartmentsOpinion
No. 05-09-00365-CV
Opinion Filed June 22, 2010.
On Appeal from the County Court at Law Number 3, Dallas County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. CC-08-04851-C.
Before Justices RICHTER, LANG-MIERS, and MYERS.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
The trial court granted the City of Dallas's motion for summary judgment on the statute of limitations defense asserted in response to Sandra Johnson's personal injury claim. Johnson, pro se, now appeals the trial court's summary judgment. We affirm the trial court's judgment. The background of the case and the evidence adduced at trial are well known to the parties, and therefore we limit our recitation of the facts. The law to be applied to this case is well settled. Therefore, we issue this memorandum opinion pursuant to Tex. R. App. P. 47.4
Johnson brought a personal injury action against the City on December 31, 2008 seeking monetary damages for injuries allegedly sustained on May 29, 2006 while attending an event at the Dallas Convention Center. The City moved for summary judgment asserting that her claims were barred by the statute of limitations, and the trial court granted the City's motion. On appeal, Johnson raises the following issues:
I. Did the City of Dallas deliberately mislead Appellant by naming the subcontractor as being fought [sic]; and
II. Did the City of Dallas hoodwinked [sic] the Appellant Sandra Johnson into neglecting her own best interest.
Although Johnson is appearing pro se, it is well established that pro se litigants are held to the same standards as licensed attorneys and must comply with all applicable rules of procedure. Wheeler v. Green, 157 S.W.3d 439, 444 (Tex. 2005) (per curiam); Amir-Sharif v. Mason, 243 S.W.3d 854, 856 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2008, no pet.). The rules of appellate procedure require an appellant's brief to contain "a clear and concise argument for the contentions made, with appropriate citations to authority and to the record." Tex. R. App. P. 38.1(i). Although we must interpret this requirement liberally, an issue not supported by authority is waived. McIntyre v. Wilson, 50 S.W.3d 674, 682 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2001, pet. denied).
While not a model of clarity, appellant makes numerous conclusory statements in her brief regarding the injuries she allegedly sustained. However, she neither cites any authority pertaining to her stated issues nor discusses any applicable law with respect to the trial court's order. We conclude this issue is inadequately briefed and presents nothing to review. See McIntyre, 50 S.W.3d at 682; Favaloro v. Comm'n for Lawyer Discipline, 13 S.W.3d 831, 840 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2000, no pet.). The issues Johnson asserts are resolved against her. The trial court's judgment is affirmed.