COURT OF A PPEAL S EI GHTH D I STRI CT OF TEX AS ELPASO, TEXAS
RI CK MI L TEER, Appellant,

v. WES TERN RI M CORP ORATI ON AND WES TERN RI M PROP ERTY MANAGEMEN T, Appellee s. § § § § § § No. 08-08-00124- CV

Appea l from the 219th District Court of Collin C ounty , Texas (TC#219-526-07)

O P I N I O N Appellant, Rick Milteer, appea ls the trial court’s rendition of summary judgme nt in favor of Appellee s, Western Rim Corporation and Western Rim Property Manag ement (“Rim”), in Milteer’s suit ag ainst Rim for premises liability and g ross neg lige nce. Finding Appellant failed to adequately brief his issues, we deter mine that nothing is prese nted for revie w an d t h er efor e aff irm the trial court’s judg ment. BACK GR OUND The fac tual backg round and proce eding s are well known to the parties, and we do not rec ite them here in detail. An abbre viated rec itation shows that when Appellant moved into his apar tment

on J uly 9, 2006, his wife and the leasing consultants manually opened the lease d g ara g e door since the remote was not working

. L ater that day , the g ara g e door closed on Appellant, causing injuries. After Appellant filed his pe tition alleg ing premise liability and g ross neg lige nce, Rim filed

an s we rs, deny ing his alleg ations, and claimed the incident was unavoidable or unfore seea b l e, o r

cause d by the acts or omissions of Appell an t o r s o m e o ther party

. Rim later filed a motion forsummary j udg ment, and Appellant responde d. After notice of hear ing, the trial court g rante d

summary judgme nt in favor of

Rim. DISCUSSIO N Appellant, appea

ring pro se , contends in three issues that the trial court’s decision to sanction him was reta liatory , that the trial court failed to consider his summary -judg ment evidenc e, and that the trial court improperly denied his reque st to continue the case befor e final judgme nt was enter ed. We need not re ach a

ny of Appe llant’s complaints as we f ind them inadequate ly

briefe d. I nitially , we rec og nize that Appellant is a cting pro se on appea l, a nd that we must c onstrue his appellate br ief libera lly

. See Sterner v. Marathon Oil Co. , 767 S.W .2d 686, 690 (Tex. 1989). Ho we v er, the law is well-settled that a party proce eding pro se must comply with all applicable proce dural rules. Valadez v. Avitia , 238 S.W .3d 843, 845 (Tex. App.–El Paso 2007, no pet.); Sweed

v. City of El Paso , 195 S.W .3d 784, 786 (Tex. App.–El Paso 2006, no pet.); Clemens v. Allen , 4 7 S.W .3d 26, 28 (Tex. App.–Amar illo 2 0 0 0 , no pet.); W eave r v. E-Z Mart Stores, Inc. , 942 S.W .2d 167, 169 (Tex. App.–Texarkana 1997, no pet.); Harris v. Showcase Chevrolet , 231 S.W .3d 559, 561 (Tex. App.–Dallas 2007, no pet.). I f t hat we re n o t t h e ca se, pro se litigants would be afforde d an

u n fair advanta g e over those repr esente d by counsel. Valadez , 238 S.W .3d at 845; Mart i n ez v. E l Paso County , 218 S.W .3d 841, 844 (Tex. App.–El Paso 2007, pet. struck); Holt v. F.F. Enterprises , 990 S. W

. 2 d 7 5 6 , 759 (Tex. App.–Amar illo 1998, pet. denied)

. There fore , on appea l, the pro se litigant must proper ly prese nt his case . Valadez , 238 S.W .3d at 845; Martinez , 218 S.W .3d at 844; Strange v. Continen tal Cas. Co. , 126 S.W .3d 676, 678 (Tex. App.–Dallas 2004, pet. denied) ; Plummer v . Ree ves , 93 S.W .3d 930, 931 (Tex. App.–Amarillo 2003, pet. denie d). The rules of appellate proce dure require Appellant’s brief to contain “a clea r and concise

2arg ument for the contentions made, with appropr iate citations to authorities and to the rec ord.” T E X .

R. A P P . P. 38.1(i). When the appellate issue is unsupported by arg ument or l acks citation to the

rec ord or leg al authority , nothing is prese nted for revie w. Republic Underw r i t er s Ins. Co. v. Mex -Tex, Inc. , 150 S.W .3d 423, 427 (Tex. 2004 ); V a l a dez , 238 S.W .3d at 843; Martinez , 218 S.W .3d at 844; Plummer , 93 S.W .3d at 931; Nguyen v. Kosnoski , 93 S.W .3d 186, 188 (Tex. App.–Houston [14th Dis t.] 2002, no pet.). As we noted in Valadez : I t is the Appellant’s burden to discuss her asser tions of err or. An appellate court has no duty – or ev en ri gh t – to perf orm an independe nt revie w of the rec ord and applicabl e l aw t o d et ermine whether there was err or. Were we to do so, even on behalf of a pro se appellant, we would be abandoning our role as neutra l adjudicator s and bec ome an a dvocate for that pa rty

. Valadez , 238 S.W .3d at 845 (c itations omi tted). Her e, Appe llant provided no re cord c itations for any of his issues. Moreove r, hi s first and third issues are mere ly brief conclusory statements unsupported by leg al citations. And his second issue, althoug h containing leg al authority for the standard of revie w and applicable law on premises liability , provided no discussion or arg ument of t h e ca s es cit ed or explanation of how those case s supported his spe cific contentions. We the ref ore overr ule his c omplaints as inadequa tely briefe d. See T E X . R. A P P . P. 38.1; Kupchynsky v. Nardiello , 230 S.W .3d 685, 692 (Tex. App.–Dallas 2007, pet. denied) (issue inadequa tely briefe d when party g ave g ener al cite to one case stating elements of

cause of action); Sterling v. Alexande r , 99 S.W .3d 793, 799 (Tex. App.–Houston [14t h Dist.] 2003, pet. denied) (issue inadequa tely briefe d when party failed to make proper citations to authority or the

rec ord and in failing to make a cog ent arg ument); W heele r v. Methodist Hosp. , 95 S.W .3d 628, 646 (Tex. App.–Houston [1st Dist.] 2002, no pet.) (issue inadequa tely briefe d when party did littl e more than summarily state his point of err or, without citations to leg al authority or substantive analy sis);

3Velasquez v. W aste Connections, Inc. , 169 S.W .3d 432, 436 (Tex. App.–El Paso 2005, no pet.) (issue inadequa tely briefe d when arg ument did not contain any ref er ence s to rele vant case s or leg al principles). The trial c ourt’s judg ment is affirme d.

GUADA L UPE RI VERA, J ustice Dec ember

16, 2009 Be fore McClure, J., R ivera , J ., and Chew, Judge Chew, Judge sitting by

assig nment

4