Affirmed and Opinion Filed February 26, 2015 

S 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-13-01722-CV 

IN THE INTEREST OF M.N.B. AND D.M.B. 

On Appeal from the 256th Judicial District Court 

Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. DF-13-09630 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before Justices Lang, Brown, and Whitehill 

Opinion by Justice Whitehill 

Appellant Dante Berry filed for a divorce from his wife, appellee Margaret Nicole Banks. 

No reporter’s record has been filed, but the final decree of divorce contains a recital that Berry 

did not appear for trial and that the case was tried to the bench. The trial court granted the 

parties a divorce and appointed Banks the sole managing conservator of the parties’ two minor 

children, M.N.B. and D.M.B. Although the court appointed Berry possessory conservator, the 

court also ordered that Berry would have no access to or possession of the children until Berry 

appeared in court and the court made further orders regarding access and possession. Berry 

appeals pro se, asserting twenty issues on appeal. We affirm based on deficiencies in Berry’s 

amended appellate brief. 
 –2– 

APPLICABLE LAW

We hold pro se litigants to the same standards as licensed attorneys, and we require them 

to comply with the rules of appellate procedure. In re I.A.S., No. 05-13-00947-CV, 2014 WL 

1483592, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas Apr. 15, 2014, no pet.) (mem. op.). We have neither the duty 

nor the right to perform an independent review of the record and applicable law to determine if 

there was error. Id. at *2. 

The Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure require appropriate citations to the record in the 

statement of facts and argument sections of an appellate brief. TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1(g), (i); see 

also Bolling v. Farmers Branch Indep. Sch. Dist., 315 S.W.3d 893, 896 (Tex. App.—Dallas 

2010, no pet.) (“If record references are not made . . . the brief fails.”). The rules also require “a 

clear and concise argument for the contentions made, with appropriate citations to authorities.” 

TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1(i). Bare assertions of error without citations to the record or to authority 

present nothing for us to review. In re I.A.S., 2014 WL 1483592, at *1. 

APPLICATION OF THE LAW TO THE FACTS

After Berry filed his original brief, we notified him of its numerous deficiencies under the 

rules of appellate procedure. He filed an amended brief that suffers from many of the same 

defects as his original brief. For example, his statement of facts is based largely on matters 

outside the record and contains no record citations. The argument section of his brief is one 

paragraph long, contains no record citations or citations to legal authority, and merely refers us 

back to the statement of issues presented and the statement of the facts. 

Because the one-paragraph argument section of Berry’s brief is devoid of substance, we 

have reviewed his five-page statement of the issues to determine if he supported any of them 

with adequate briefing. Issues two, six, thirteen, fifteen, seventeen, eighteen, nineteen, and 

twenty contain no citations to legal authority at all. Issues one, three, four, seven, eight, nine, 
 –3– 

ten, eleven, twelve, fourteen, and sixteen refer in passing to various constitutional provisions and 

statutes, but they contain no reasoned argumentation applying those provisions to the facts of this 

case. Issue five contains a list of appellate cases, but again Berry provides no argumentation 

applying them to the facts of this case. And there are no record citations in the issues presented 

or anywhere else in Berry’s brief. We conclude that all of Berry’s issues presented are 

inadequately briefed and are therefore waived. See id. at *2; see also In re Estate of Miller, 243 

S.W.3d 831, 840 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2008, no pet.) (issue waived because appellant did not 

analyze legal authority and made “no suggested application of it to the facts”). 

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the trial court’s judgment. See Crouch v. 

Continental Cas. Co., No. 05-06-00605-CV, 2007 WL 2028761, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas July 

16, 2007, pet. denied) (mem. op.) (affirming judgment after concluding appellant waived all 

issues for inadequate briefing). 

131722F.P05 

 

/Bill Whitehill/ 

BILL WHITEHILL 

JUSTICE 
 –4– 

S 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

JUDGMENT 

IN THE INTEREST OF M.N.B. AND 

D.M.B. 

No. 05-13-01722-CV 

 On Appeal from the 256th Judicial District 

Court, Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. DF-13-09630. 

Opinion delivered by Justice Whitehill. 

Justices Lang and Brown participating. 

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

AFFIRMED. 

 It is ORDERED that appellee Margaret Nicole Banks recover her costs of this appeal 

from appellant Dante Berry. 

Judgment entered February 26, 2015.