1 C O U R T O F A P P E A LS EI GHTH D I STRI CT OF TEXAS ELPASO, TEXAS M AR T A M AR T I

NE Z, Ap pe lla nt,

v. AL L EN SANDY WARD, Appellee

. § § § § § § No . 0 8- 08 -0 03 31 -C V

Appea l from the 210th District Court of El Paso County , Texas (TC# 2004-1321)
O P I N I O N Marta Ma

rtinez appea ls from the trial cour t’s summary -j u d gm ent ruli ng in favor of the defe ndant. FindingMartinez failed to c omp l y wi th the briefing require ments in Rule 38.1 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Pr o c e d u r e , w e deter

mine that nothing is pre sented for revie w and ther efor e,
a ff ir m th e tr ia l c ourt ’s jud g me nt. BACK GR OUND I n 2 00 4, Mart ine z fi le d h e r p e tit ion a lle g ingse ve ra l de fe nd ants ve rb a lly and ph y sic a lly hara ssed her , and aske d the trial cour t to force the def

endants to ac kn o wl ed ge her r ights in the pr op e rt y loc a te d at 371 8 Wick

ham in El Pa so Cou

nty . M art ine z late r m ov e d f or summa ry jud g me nt,

and the tr ia l c ourt se t a he ari ng on the mot ion fo r June 22 , 20 05

. Th e c ourt ’s do c ke t sh e e t r e fl e c ts that the hea

ring was he ld; however , n o fi n al judgme nt from that hea ring appea

rs in the re cord. Neve rtheless, Mar

tinez filed a notice of a

ppeal, a nd we subseque ntly

dismiss ed the a

ppeal f or wa nt of jurisdiction. The def

endant then move d for summary judgme nt on no-ev idence g rounds. The court’s doc ket shee t does not indicate whe ther a h earing was he ld on the defe ndant’s motion, and2

the re cord doe s not contain a final judgme nt ba sed on the de fenda nt’s motion. However , Martinez fi le d h e r s e c on d n oti c e of a pp e a l, a nd we dis mis se d th a t a

pp eal for lac k of juri sd ic tio n, a s w e ll. Fo l l o wi n g our dismissal, the trial court held a hear ing on the defe ndant’s motion for summary judgme nt and subsequently enter ed an order g ranting summary judgme nt in the def endant’ s favor

. I t is fr om t

hat or de r t

hat Ma rt ine z no w a

pp e a ls. AN AL YSI S I n i t i al l y , we n o t e t h at we m u s tco n s t ru e M ar t i n ez ’s b ri ef l i b er al l y as s h e i s ap p ea ri n g pr o s e . See Sterner v. M

arathon Oil Co. , 767 S.W .2d 686, 690 (Tex. 1989). Howe ver, pro se lit ig ants sti ll

mu s t c o mp ly w it

h a ll a p p li c a b le p r o c e d

u r a l r u le s. Va la dez v. Av iti a , 2 3 8 S. W. 3 d 8 4 3 , 8 4 5 ( T e x. Ap p. –E l Pa so 20 07 , n o p e t.) ; Swe e d v . Ci ty of E l P as o , 1 95 S.W. 3d

78 4, 786 ( Te x. Ap p. –E l Pa so 20 06 , n o p e t.) ; M

a r t i n e z v . El Pa so Cou nty , 2 18 S.W. 3d 84 1, 84 4 ( Te x. Ap p. –E l Pa so 20 07 , p e t. str uc k) ; Strange v. Continenta l C a s . Co. , 126 S.W .3d 676, 678 (Tex. App.–Dallas 2004, pe t. denied); Plummer v . Ree ves , 93 S.W .3d 930, 931 (Tex. App.–Amarillo 2003, pet. denied) ; Clemens v. A llen , 47 S.W. 3d 26 , 28 (T e x. Ap p. –A mari llo 20 00 , n o p e t.) ; W eave r v. E-Z Mart Stores, Inc

. , 942 S.W .2d 16 7, 16 9 ( Te x. Ap p. –T e xar ka na 19 97 , n o p e t.) ; Harris v

. Showcase Chev rolet , 231 S.W .3d 559, 561 ( T e x. A p p . – D a ll a s 2 0 0 7 , n o p e t. )

. T h u s , f o ll o w in g th e r

u le s o f a p p e ll a te p r o c e d

u r e , the pr o s e appellant’ s brief must stat e “a l l i s s u es or points presente d for r eview” and conta in “a c lear and concise argument for the c ontentions made, with appropr iate citations to authoriti es and to the

rec ord.” T EX . R. A PP . P. 3 8. 1( f) , (i)

. Whe n no issu e s ar e state d a nd the br ie f c on ta ins no argume nts or citations to the re cord or leg al authority , nothing is pre sented for revie w. Re

pu bli c Un de rwr ite rs Ins. Co. v. Me

x-Tex , Inc. , 1 50 S.W. 3d

42 3, 42 7 ( Te x. 20 04 ); Valadez , 238 S.W. 3d a t 84 3; Martinez , 21 8 S. W.3 d at 84 4; Plummer , 93 S.W. 3d a t 931; Nguyen v . Kosnoski , 9 3 S. W. 3 d 1 8 6 , 1 8 8 ( T e x.3

App.–Houston [14th Dis t.] 2002, no pet.). As a revie wing court, we have “ no duty – or even r ight – to perfor

m an independe nt reviewof the re cord a nd applicable law to deter mine whether

there was
err or.” Valadez , 238 S.W .3d at 845 (c itations omi tted). Martinez’s brief

consists of nine pag es. Those pag es include a cover sheet, the ide ntities of the par ties, counsel, and judg es, a table of contents, i ndex of authorities, statement of the ca se, two
co v er s h ee t s t o the appe ndix , and a c ertificate of ser vice. The brief doe s not identify any issues prese nted or contain a st atement of fac ts, summary of arg ument, analy sis or argument of any issues raised, pray er , or the doc uments noted on the cove r shee ts to the appendix. “I t would be inappropriate for this C ourt to attempt to re-dr aft a nd articulate what we believe [Martinez] may have intended to raise as err or on appea l.” Valadez , 238 S.W .3d at 845, citing Martinez , 218 S.W .3d at 845. Be cause Martinez has not c omplied with the require ments of Rule 38.1, she has w aived a ny issues she soug ht to raise on appe al. SeeT EX . R. A PP . P. 3 8. 1; Fredonia State Bank v . Gene ral Am. Life Ins. Co. , 8 81 S.W. 2d

27 9, 28 4 ( Te x. 19 94 ); Valadez , 2 38 S.W. 3d a t 84 5; Martinez , 218 S.W .3d at 845. Ac c or din g ly , w e a ff ir m th e tr ia l c ourt ’s jud g me nt.

GUADA LUPE RI VERA, J ustice Dec ember

9, 2009 B e f o r e C h e w , C

. J. , M c C l u r e , a n d R i v e r a , JJ.