Jaime Dominguez v. Sue Bramhall

Dominguez v. Bramhall TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN NO. 03-96-00090-CV Jaime Dominguez, Appellant v. Sue Bramhall, Appellee FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TOM GREEN COUNTY, 119TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. B-95-1463-C, HONORABLE CURT F. STEIB, JUDGE PRESIDING PER CURIAM Appellant Jaime Dominguez appeals the trial court's dismissal of his lawsuit against appellee Sue Bramhall, the district clerk of Tom Green County. Dominguez, a state inmate, sued Bramhall for negligently serving the petition in Dominguez' legal malpractice suit against his appointed criminal defense attorney. The trial court found that Dominguez' suit was frivolous and malicious and dismissed it under the authority of section 14.003 of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 14.003 (West Supp. 1996). We will affirm the judgment of the trial court. In his sole point of error, Dominguez asserts generally that the trial court erred in dismissing his cause without affording him a trial on the merits. The court set out in its judgment specific findings of fact. Within these findings, the court states that, after examining Dominguez' allegations, it finds that the suit against Dominguez' criminal defense attorney was dismissed as frivolous, that Bramhall's performance was not substandard, that Dominguez suffered no damage from any matter alleged in this suit, and that Dominguez' suit lacks any arguable basis in law or fact. Dominguez directs his argument at the trial court's judgment generally without attacking any of the court's specific findings. The findings are consequently binding on this Court. Des Champ v. Featherston, 886 S.W.2d 536, 541 (Tex. App.--Austin 1995, no writ); Bransom v. Standard Hardware, Inc., 874 S.W.2d 919, 927 (Tex. App.--Fort Worth 1994, writ denied) (general assertion that evidence is insufficient to support damages without attacking specific finding presents no error). The court's findings are sufficient to support its judgment of dismissal. (1) We therefore overrule Dominguez' point of error. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. Before Chief Justice Carroll, Justices Kidd and B. A. Smith Affirmed Filed: October 2, 1996 Do Not Publish 1. We note that the district clerk completes her duty regarding citation by issuing it, that is, by delivering the citation to the process server. It is the plaintiff's responsibility to see that the citation is served. Aguilar v. Stone, 901 S.W.2d 955, 955 (Tex. App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 1995, orig. proceeding). Even if Dominguez' argument could be construed as attacking the findings that Bramhall performed her duty and that Dominguez was not damaged, Dominguez' failure to challenge the finding that his legal malpractice suit was dismissed as frivolous would preclude our sustaining his point. Des Champ, 886 S.W.2d at 541.