JOHN C. BUCHANAN v. DWIGHT W. CONNELY
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO JOHN C. BUCHANAN, Plaintiff/Counterdefendant/Appellant, v. DWIGHT W. CONNELY, Defendant/Counterclaimant/Appellee. No. 2 CA-CV 2015-0194 Filed April 22, 2016 THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES. NOT FOR PUBLICATION See Ariz. R. Sup. Ct. 111(c)(1); Ariz. R. Civ. App. P. 28(a)(1), (f). Appeal from the Superior Court in Pima County No. C20118596 The Honorable Sarah R. Simmons, Judge AFFIRMED John Buchanan, Oracle In Propria Persona Dwight W. Connely, Tucson In Propria Persona BUCHANAN v. CONNELY Decision of the Court MEMORANDUM DECISION Chief Judge Eckerstrom authored the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Vásquez and Judge Miller concurred. E C K E R S T R O M, Chief Judge: ¶1 Plaintiff/counterdefendant/appellant John Buchanan appeals from the trial court’s judgment in favor of defendant/counterclaimant/appellee Dwight Connely. Because Buchanan has failed to comply with the Rules of Civil Appellate Procedure, we deem his claims waived and affirm the judgment of the trial court. ¶2 On appeal, Buchanan has not identified any specific rulings he wishes this court to review. He has also failed to develop any legal argument or to provide appropriate citations to the record. See Ariz. R. Civ. App. P. 13(a)(7)(A) (requiring “supporting reasons for each contention, . . . with citations of legal authorities and appropriate references to the . . . record”); In re $26,980.00 U.S. Currency, 199 Ariz. 291, ¶ 28, 18 P.3d 85, 93 (App. 2000) (noting conclusory assertions do not comply with appellate rules). While we acknowledge that Buchanan is not represented by counsel, “a party who conducts a case without an attorney is entitled to no more consideration from the court than a party represented by counsel, and is held to the same standards expected of a lawyer.” Kelly v. NationsBanc Mortg. Corp., 199 Ariz. 284, ¶ 16, 17 P.3d 790, 793 (App. 2000). Accordingly, we deem any claims Buchanan might have made waived. See Rice v. Brakel, 233 Ariz. 140, ¶ 28, 310 P.3d 16, 23 (App. 2013) (party that fails to “cite[] . . . relevant portions of the record [and] address[] the basis of the [trial] court’s decision” waives claim on appeal); Delmastro & Eells v. Taco Bell Corp., 228 Ariz. 134, n.2, 263 P.3d 683, 686 n.2 (App. 2011) (references to appendix do not substitute for appropriate record citations). ¶3 We affirm the judgment of the trial court. 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
