Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 64A05-1504-CT-160| October 30, 2015 Page 1 of 6

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this 

Memorandum Decision shall not be 

regarded as precedent or cited before any 

court except for the purpose of establishing 

the defense of res judicata, collateral 

estoppel, or the law of the case.

APPELLANT PRO SE

Rose Keen

Chesterton, Indiana

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEES

Jennifer Kalas 

Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP

Schererville, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Rose Keen,

Appellant-Plaintiff,

v.

Terminix International Company 

Limited Partnership, 

Servicemaster Residential 

Commercial Services Limited 

Partnership, and Timothy 

Slocum,

Appellees-Defendants. 

October 30, 2015

Court of Appeals Case No. 

64A05-1504-CT-160

Appeal from the Porter Superior 

Court 

The Honorable Roger V. 

Bradford, Judge

Trial Court Cause No. 

64D01-1008-CT-8454 

Brown, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 64A05-1504-CT-160| October 30, 2015 Page 2 of 6

[1] Rose Keen, pro se, appeals the trial court’s entry of summary judgment in favor 

of Terminix International Company Limited Partnership, Servicemaster 

Residential Commercial Services Limited Partnership, and Timothy Slocum 

(together, the “Appellees”). We dismiss Keen’s appeal. 

Procedural History

[2] In August 2010, Keen filed a complaint against the Appellees alleging they 

negligently discharged pesticide or other chemicals in a home where she was 

present and that as a result she sustained personal injuries. On July 22, 2014, 

the Appellees filed a motion for summary judgment together with designated 

evidence and a memorandum in support of the motion. In August or 

September 2014, Keen filed a motion for an enlargement of time, and the court 

granted the motion, extending the time for Keen to file a response until October 

17, 2014. On October 2, 2014, Keen’s counsel filed a motion to withdraw 

appearance, and the following day the court granted the motion and granted 

Keen until November 7, 2014 to respond to the Appellees’ motion for summary 

judgment. On November 5, 2014, Keen filed a response to the summary 

judgment motion as well as another motion for enlargement of time. On 

November 13, 2014, the Appellees filed a motion for hearing, and the court 

scheduled a hearing for March 4, 2015. 

[3] On February 11, 2015, Keen filed a Motion to Delay Decision on Summary 

Judgment requesting the court to delay any decision until new interrogatories 

could be answered by all of the Appellees. On February 19, 2015, the court 

denied Keen’s motion and ordered that the hearing on Appellees’ motion for 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 64A05-1504-CT-160| October 30, 2015 Page 3 of 6

summary judgment would remain scheduled for March 4, 2015. On March 4, 

2015, the court held the scheduled summary judgment hearing. On March 18, 

2015, the court granted the Appellees’ motion for summary judgment on all 

claims asserted in Keen’s complaint. Keen now appeals. 

Discussion

[4] The Appellees argue that the appellant’s brief filed by Keen is utterly devoid of 

any reference to the record on appeal or to an appendix, that she cites no 

authority in support of her analysis and provides no cogent reasoning, “instead 

offering only two paragraphs of speculation that a former Terminix employee 

might be able to provide testimony helpful” to her, and thus that her argument 

is waived. Appellee’s Brief at 7. 

[5] A pro se litigant is held to the same established rules of procedure that trained 

legal counsel are bound to follow, and the fact that a litigant proceeds pro se

does not excuse the litigant from complying with appellate rules. Foster v. 

Adoption of Federspiel, 560 N.E.2d 691, 692 (Ind. Ct. App. 1990). Although we 

prefer to dispose of cases on their merits, where an appellant fails to 

substantially comply with the appellate rules, then dismissal of the appeal is 

warranted. Hughes v. King, 808 N.E.2d 146, 147 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004). This 

court has discretion to dismiss an appeal for the appellant’s failure to comply 

with the Rules of Appellate Procedure. See Miller v. Hague Ins. Agency, Inc., 871 

N.E.2d 406, 407 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (“Although we will exercise our 

discretion to reach the merits when violations are comparatively minor, if the 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 64A05-1504-CT-160| October 30, 2015 Page 4 of 6

parties commit flagrant violations of the Rules of Appellate Procedure we will 

hold issues waived, or dismiss the appeal.”), reh’g denied. 

[6] Keen has failed to comply with the requirements of the Rules. Appellate Rule 

46(A)(5) governs the statement of case and provides that “[p]age references to 

the Record on Appeal or Appendix are required in accordance with Rule 

22(C).” Keen’s statement of the case in her appellant’s brief does not include 

any citations to the record or appendix. Appellate Rule 46(A)(6) governs the 

statement of facts and provides that “[t]he facts shall be supported by page 

references to the Record on Appeal or Appendix in accordance with Rule 

22(C).” Keen’s statement of facts is contained on three pages and includes 

citations to a deposition in only the final paragraph of the section. Keen’s 

statement of facts does not include appropriate citation to the record on appeal 

or appendix as required by Appellate Rule 46(A)(6). 

[7] Further, Keen’s claim is not supported by cogent argument or citation to 

relevant authority. Appellate Rule 46(8)(a) provides that “[t]he argument must 

contain the contentions of the appellant on the issues presented, supported by 

cogent reasoning” and that “[e]ach contention must be supported by citations to 

the authorities, statutes, and the Appendix or parts of the Record on Appeal 

relied on . . . .” Appellate Rule 46(8)(b) provides that the argument must 

include “a concise statement of the applicable standard of review” and “a brief 

statement of the procedural and substantive facts necessary for consideration of 

the issues presented on appeal, including a statement of how the issues relevant 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 64A05-1504-CT-160| October 30, 2015 Page 5 of 6

to the appeal were raised and resolved by any . . . trial court.” This court has 

previously stated: 

We demand cogent argument supported with adequate citation 

to authority because it promotes impartiality in the appellate 

tribunal. A court which must search the record and make up its 

own arguments because a party has not adequately presented 

them runs the risk of becoming an advocate rather than an 

adjudicator. Keller v. State, 549 N.E.2d 372, 373 (Ind. 1990). A 

brief should not only present the issues to be decided on appeal, 

but it should be of material assistance to the court in deciding 

those issues. Hebel v. Conrail, Inc., 475 N.E.2d 652, 659 (Ind. 

1985). On review, we will not search the record to find a basis 

for a party’s argument . . . nor will we search the authorities cited 

by a party in order to find legal support for its position. 

Young v. Butts, 685 N.E.2d 147, 151 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997). 

[8] Keen appears to claim that the trial court erred in denying her Motion to Delay 

Decision on Summary Judgment and states in part that no one “caught the 

mistake that the interrogatories were not signed under oath,” that “[i]t’s been 

years and it’s not fair to [her] or to Tim Slocum the Defendant or to Patrick 

Shannon, Terminix’s representative,” that “I know things now that I did not 

know years ago,” that “I’m sure that the Defendant and Terminix’s 

representative might have information now that they did not have years ago or 

even changed their way of thinking as to what they thought was correct then –

they now see differently,” and that “[i]t’s not correct to allow these

interrogatories as valid.” Appellant’s Brief at 13-14. Keen has failed to 

advance her arguments with cogent reasoning or citations to relevant authority 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 64A05-1504-CT-160| October 30, 2015 Page 6 of 6

and the record. Her appellant’s brief and reply brief cite only to the Federal 

Rules of Civil Procedure, and she cites no Indiana caselaw or rules. Addressing 

Keen’s claims on the merits would require us to make and advance arguments 

on her behalf. Therefore, we dismiss Keen’s appeal. See Keller, 549 N.E.2d at 

373-374 (dismissing appeal because the appellant failed to provide cogent 

argument with adequate citation of authority). 

Conclusion

[9] For the foregoing reasons, we dismiss Keen’s appeal. 

[10] Dismissed.

Riley, J., and Altice, J., concur.