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 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 Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure control the required contents and organization of 

an appellant’s brief. See TEX. R. APP. 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. TEX. R. APP.

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 have 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 within 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 submitted on the defective brief. 

Although we are to construe the rules of appellate procedure liberally, see Republic 

Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Mex–Tex., Inc., 150 S.W.3d 423, 427 (Tex. 2004), in this case 

appellant’s briefing is so inadequate that we would 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 issues are identified, no arguments are made, and 

there are no citations to authority or the record. Therefore, on this record, Ferguson has forfeited 

her appellate issue(s) due to inadequate briefing. See TEX. R. APP. 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 Stoddart 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 STORES TEXAS, LLC D/B/A WALMART SUPERCENTER STORE #5147, WAL-MART STORES, INC. D/B/A WAL-MART 

STORE #789 AND MCDONALD'S CORPORATION recover the costs of this appeal from 

appellant ALTA FERGUSON. 

Judgment entered June 9, 2016.