Affirmed and Opinion Filed June 9, 2016 

# S

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-15-00848-CV ALTA FERGUSON, Appellant V. WAL-MART STORES TEXAS, LLC D/B/ A WAL-MART SUPERCENTER STORE #5147, WAL-MART STORES, INC. D/ B/A WAL-MART STORE #789 AND MCDONALD'S CORPORATION, Appellee On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 1 Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CC-11-05569-A



### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Myers, Stoddart, and Whitehill Opinion by Justice Whitehill In this personal injury lawsuit arising out of a slip-and-fall, Alta Ferguson appeals the entry of a final judgment in favor of Wal-Mart. Appellant is pro se before this Court. We hold pro se litigants to the same standards as licensed attorneys and require them to comply w ith 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 ove r 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 Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure contro l the required contents and organization of an appellant’s brief. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 38.1; ERI Consulting Eng’rs, Inc. v. Swinnea , 318–2– S.W.3d 867, 880 (Tex. 2010). Under those rules, an appellant’s brief must concisely state all issues or points presented for review and, among other things, contain a clear concise argument for the contentions made, with appropriate citations to authorities and to the record. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 38.1(i). We may not speculate as to the substance of the specific issues asserted by an appellant and may not make a party’s argument for her. Strange v. Cont’l Cas. Co. , 126 S.W.3d 676, 678 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2004, pet. denied). And we ha ve no duty to perform an independent review of the record and the applicable law to determine if the trial court erred. Id . An appellant’s failure to cite legal authority or provide substantive analysis of a legal issue thus forfeits the complaint. See Fredonia State Bank v. Gen. Am. Life Ins. Co. , 881 S.W.2d 279, 284 (Tex. 1994) (observing that error may be waived by inadequate briefing). On November 19, 2015, we notified Ferguson that her brief was deficient and instructed her to file an amended brief w ithin ten days. She did not do so. On January 19, 2016, Ferguson filed a motion for an extension of time to file an amended brief. We denied the motion and advised that the case would be s ubmitted on the defective brief. Although we are to construe the rule s of appellate procedure liberally, see Republic Underwriters Ins. C o. v. Mex–Tex., Inc. , 150 S.W.3d 423, 427 (Te x. 2004), in this case appellant’s briefing is so inadequate that we w ould have to identify her issues and make her arguments for her, which we will not do. Robertson v. Southwestern Bell Yellow Pages, Inc. , 190 S.W.3d 899, 903 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2006, no pet.). The brief is a collection of notices and excerpts from medical records. No appellate is sues are identified, no arguments are made, and there are no citations to authority or the record. Therefore, on this reco rd, Ferguson has forfeited her appellate issue(s) due to inadequate briefing. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 38.1(i).–3– We affirm the trial court’s judgment.

150848F.P05 /Bill Whitehill/ BILL WHITEHILL JUSTICE–4– 

# S

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT
ALTA FERGUSON, Appellant
No. 05-15-00848-CV V. WAL-MART STORES TEXAS, LLC D/B/A WAL-MART SUPERCENTER STORE #5147, WAL-MART STORES, INC. D/B/A WAL-MART STORE #789 AND MCDONALD'S CORPORATION, Appellee On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 1, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CC-11-05569-A. Opinion delivered by Justice Whitehill. Justices Myers and Stod dart participating.

In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED

. It is ORDERED that appellee WAL-MART ST ORES TEXAS, LLC D/B/A WALMART SUPERCENTER STORE #5147, WAL-MA RT STORES, INC. D/B/A WAL-MART STORE #789 AND MCDONALD'S CORPORATION rec over the costs of this appeal from appellant ALTA FERGUSON.
Judgment entered June 9, 2016.