AFFIRMED and Opinion Filed January 8, 2021 

S 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-19-01289-CV 

JESSICA L. JOHNSON, Appellant 

V. 

WELLS FARGO BANK, NA, Appellee 

On Appeal from the 101st Judicial District Court 

Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. DC-19-03662 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before Justices Partida-Kipness, Pedersen, and Goldstein 

Opinion by Justice Goldstein 

Wells Fargo obtained a summary judgment against Johnson for the unpaid 

balance of her Wells Fargo credit card. Johnson, who is pro se, appeals the 

judgment, raising five issues. Johnson’s brief lacks any citations to the record and 

does not include any authority in support of her complaints,1

 nor does her argument 

explain, even summarily, why the issues she raises constitute errors by the trial court 

which could have resulted in an erroneous judgment against her.

 

1

 Johnson cites two cases filed against Wells Fargo in unrelated matters, but those cases are not authorities 

that support her arguments or relate to the judgment rendered against her. 
 –2– 

Although we liberally construe pro se briefs, we hold pro se litigants to the 

same standards as licensed attorneys and require them to comply with our rules of 

procedure. In re N.E.B., 251 S.W.3d 211, 211–12 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2008, no 

pet.). Excusing pro se litigants from complying with rules would provide them with 

an unfair advantage over litigants represented by counsel. Id. 

Briefs filed in this Court must contain, among other items, a nonargumentative statement of the facts, supported by record references, and a clear and 

concise argument for the contention made with appropriate citations to authorities 

and the record. TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1; Amrhein v. Bollinger, 593 S.W.3d 398, 401 

(Tex. App.—Dallas 2019, pet. denied). Short conclusory statements, unsupported 

by legal citations do not suffice. Amrhein, 593 S.W.3d at 401. Nor will we search 

the record for facts or conduct legal research where the party asserting error has 

failed to do so. Bolling v. Farmers Branch Indep. Sch. Dist., 315 S.W.3d 893, 895 

(Tex. App.—Dallas 2010, no pet.). Undertaking these tasks would position us as 

advocates rather than judges. Amrehein, 593 S.W.3d at 401; Bolling, 315 S.W.3d at 

895. 

Despite our request for an amended brief in which we identified Johnson’s 

failure to comply with Rule 38.1, she did not file an amended, compliant brief. Each 

issue she raised as error is accordingly subject to waiver on that basis. Unifund CCR 

Partners v. Weaver, 262 S.W.3d 796, 797 (Tex. 2008) (per curiam) (“We will not 

consider factual assertions that appear solely in briefs and are not supported by the 
 –3– 

appellate record.”); In re J.A.M.R., 303 S.W.3d 422, 425 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2010, 

no pet.) (“The law is well-settled that to present an issue to this Court, a party’s brief 

shall contain, among other things, a clear and concise argument for the contentions 

made with appropriate citations to authority and the record.”); TEX. R. APP. P. 

38.1(i). We conclude Johnson waived any error below by failing to comply with 

Rule 38.1. We AFFIRM the trial court’s judgment. 

 

191289F.P05 

 

/Bonnie Lee Goldstein/ 

BONNIE LEE GOLDSTEIN 

JUSTICE 
 –4– 

S 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

JUDGMENT 

JESSICA L. JOHNSON, Appellant 

No. 05-19-01289-CV V. 

WELLS FARGO BANK, NA, 

Appellee 

 On Appeal from the 101st Judicial 

District Court, Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. DC-19-03662. 

Opinion delivered by Justice 

Goldstein. Justices Partida-Kipness 

and Pedersen participating. 

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

court is AFFIRMED. 

 It is ORDERED that appellee WELLS FARGO BANK, NA recover its 

costs of this appeal from appellant JESSICA L. JOHNSON. 

Judgment entered January 8, 2021