the 249th District Court Johnson County, Texas Trial Court
Chief Justice Gray, Justice Davis, and Justice Scoggins
three issues, appellant, Nancy Giraldo, advancing pro se,
argues that the trial court erred in granting summary
judgment in favor of her former employer, appellee
Southwestern Adventist University. Specifically, Giraldo
contends that the trial court erred by: (1) failing to
provide her with an opportunity to complete discovery (2)
excluding critical evidence; and (3) granting summary
judgment in favor of appellee. We affirm.
was previously employed by appellee as an Associate Professor
in the Psychology Department. In her live pleading, Giraldo
asserted that appellee discharged her from her position for
improper purposes-a contention with which appellee disagrees.
Specifically, Giraldo alleged claims for gender
discrimination, national-origin discrimination, ethnic
discrimination, color discrimination, retaliation, and breach
response to Giraldo's lawsuit, appellee filed traditional
and no-evidence motions for summary judgment. After a
hearing, the trial court granted appellee's motions for
summary judgment. This appeal followed.
first issue, Giraldo contends that the trial court erred in
failing to grant her motion to extend the time to respond to
appellee's motions for summary judgment and to complete
discovery. At the outset of our analysis of this issue, we
note that Giraldo has not provided any citations to the
record in her briefing of this issue. See Tex. R.
App. P. 38.1(i) ("The brief must contain a clear and
concise argument for the contentions made, with appropriate
citations to authorities and to the record.");
Nguyen v. Kosnoski, 93 S.W.3d 186, 188 (Tex.
App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2002, no pet.) ("Moreover, an
issue not supported by references to the record is
waived."); see also Warren v. McLennan County
Judiciary, No. 10-13-00009-CV, 2013 Tex.App. LEXIS 7946,
at **3-4 n.2 (Tex. App.-Waco June 27, 2013, no pet.) (mem.
op.) ("Moreover, under Texas law, pro-se litigants are
held to the same standards as licensed attorneys with regard
to compliance with applicable laws and rules of
procedure." (citing Mansfield State Bank v.
Cohn, 573 S.W.2d 181, 184-85 (Tex. 1978); In re
N.E.B., 251 S.W.3d 211, 211-12 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2008,
no pet.))). As such, Giraldo has waived her complaint in this
event, even if she had provided appropriate citations to the
record in her briefing, Giraldo's complaint in this issue
lacks merit. On January 11, 2016, Giraldo filed a motion for
extension of time to respond to appellee's motion for
summary judgment and to complete discovery. Thereafter, on
January 19, 2016, Giraldo filed a motion for continuance,
requesting more time to conduct discovery in preparation for
the summary-judgment hearing. Neither of Giraldo's
motions were verified or accompanied by an affidavit
describing the evidence sought, explaining its materiality,
and showing that Giraldo had used due diligence to obtain the
continuance is sought to pursue further discovery, the motion
must either be verified or supported by affidavit describing
the evidence sought, explaining its materiality, and showing
the party requesting the continuance has used due diligence
to obtain the evidence. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 251,
252; Tenneco, Inc. v. Enter. Prods. Co., 925 S.W.2d
640, 647 (Tex. 1996); Wal-Mart Stores Tex., L.P. v.
Crosby, 295 S.W.3d 346, 356 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2009, pet.
denied). Conclusory allegations are not sufficient. Lee
v. Haynes & Boone, L.L.P., 129 S.W.3d 192, 198 (Tex.
App.-Dallas 2004, pet. denied). We must presume that a trial
court does not abuse its discretion in denying a motion for
continuance when the motion is not verified or supported by
affidavit. See Serrano v. Ryan's Crossing
Apartments, 241 S.W.3d 560, 564 (Tex. App.-El Paso 2007,
pet. denied); City of Houston v. Blackbird, 658
S.W.2d 269, 272 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1983, writ
because Giraldo's motion for continuance was unverified
and unaccompanied by an affidavit outlining the information
listed above, we must presume that the trial court did not
abuse its discretion in failing to grant her motions. See
Serrano, 241 S.W.3d at 564; Blackbird, 658
S.W.2d at 272. Accordingly, we overrule her first issue.
second issue, Giraldo argues that the trial court erred in
excluding evidence that was controlling on a material issue.
In particular, Giraldo complains about the trial court's
exclusion of Exhibits A, B, M, N, and Q. Exhibit A
purportedly is a copy of the Southwestern Adventist
University Faculty/Staff Handbook. Exhibit B purportedly is a
copy of the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools
Faculty Credentialing Guidelines. The remaining exhibits are
personal emails of Giraldo's.
the case in her first issue, Giraldo has not provided any
citations to the record in her briefing of this issue.
See Tex. R. App. P. 38.1(i); Nguyen, 93
S.W.3d at 188; see also Warren, 2013 Tex.App. LEXIS
7946, at ...