Full Opinion

Opinion issued October 2, 2026 In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-26-00270-CV ——————————— JUANITA ROJAS, Appellant V. TEXAS MUTUAL INSURANCE, Appellee On Appeal from the 129th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Case No. 2025-15779 MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant Juanita Rojas appeals from the trial court’s order that granted summary judgment in favor of appellee Texas Mutual Insurance. Because Rojas has failed to file an appellant’s brief that complies with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, we dismiss this appeal for want of prosecution. “[A]ppellate courts should reach the merits of an appeal whenever reasonably possible.” St. John Missionary Baptist Church v. Flake, 595 S.W.3d 211, 214 (Tex. 2020). To enable an appellate court to do that, an appellant’s brief “must contain a clear and concise argument for the contentions made, with appropriate citations to authorities and to the record.” TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1(i). Stated differently, in order for an appellate court to be able to address an issue, the appealing party must argue the issue’s substance. Flake, 595 S.W.3d at 214. An appellate court has no duty—or even right—to perform an independent review of the record and applicable law to determine whether there was error. See Wade v. Comm’n for Law. Discipline, 961 S.W.2d 366, 373 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1997, no pet.). An issue on appeal unsupported by argument or citation to the record or legal authority presents nothing for our review. See Fredonia State Bank v. Gen. Am. Life Ins. Co., 881 S.W.2d 279, 284–85 (Tex. 1994). Here, after Rojas filed her first appellant’s brief in this Court, we struck the brief, noting that, among other reasons, it failed to provide either substantive analysis or citations to the record and authorities as required. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1(i). We ordered Rojas to file a corrected brief within thirty days that complied with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See id. Rojas has filed a new brief that is largely the same as her original brief. Rojas’s new brief likewise fails to provide substantive analysis or citations to the 2 record or authorities as required. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1(i); See Tesoro Petroleum Corp. v. Nabors Drilling USA, Inc., 106 S.W.3d 118, 128 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2002, pet. denied) (“Rule 38 requires [an appellant] to provide us with such discussion of the facts and the authorities relied upon . . . to maintain the point at issue. This is not done by merely uttering brief conclusory statements, unsupported by legal citations.”). Because Rojas has not corrected the deficiencies in her original brief as directed in this Court’s previous order, she has failed to provide us with a brief that complies with Rule 38.1(i) and this Court’s prior order. See, e.g., Tyurin v. Cap. One, N.A., No. 01-16-00810-CV, 2018 WL 2925688, at *2 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] June 12, 2018, no pet.) (mem. op.). We therefore dismiss this appeal for want of prosecution. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(a)(1), 42.3(b), 43.2(f). All other pending motions are dismissed as moot. PER CURIAM Panel consists of Chief Justice Adams and Justices Guiney and Johnson. 3