McGarry v. Eaker
Filed 3/2/06 McGarry v. Eaker CA3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
(Sacramento)
----
| CATHERINE McGARRY, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. JOYCE EAKER et al., Defendants and Respondents. | C047446 (Sup.Ct.No. 02AS07907)
|
Plaintiff Catherine McGarry appeals from a judgment of dismissal following orders granting defendants summary judgment in this medical malpractice action. The trial court granted summary judgment because McGarry has no expert evidence to support her claim of malpractice. We previously dismissed a portion of her appeal and the only defendants on appeal are Joyce Eaker, Sutter Roseville Hospital and Sutter General Hospital.
The facts and procedure of this action need not be further described because McGarry raises no coherent arguments. A civil litigant must abide by the same procedures--including appellate procedures--whether or not she chooses to employ an attorney. (Bistawros v. Greenberg (1987) 189 Cal.App.3d 189, 193; see Doran v. Dreyer (1956) 143 Cal.App.2d 289, 290.) McGarry, as the appellant, bears the burden to show reversible. (Guthrey v. State of California (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 1108, 1115-1116.) McGarry's opening brief is incomprehensible, as it fails to provide a coherent factual and procedural background and fails to provide coherent legal arguments. â€
