MEMORANDUM DECISION
[1] Lakesha L. Norington appeals the trial courts grant of summary judgment to GEO Founder George Zoley and employees of the Indiana Department of Correction (“DOC”). As best we can ascertain, she contends the trial court erred when it granted the summary judgment motion. We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] On March 26, 2018, Norington filed a complaint against the DOC, DOC officials, Zoley, and DOC employees, alleging they committed constitutional violations – such as denying her access to library materials and tampering with her food – that entitled her to recover under 42 U.S.C. section 1983. On September 14, 2018, the DOC, DOC officials, Zoley, and the DOC employees filed a motion to dismiss Noringtons action under Indiana Trial Rule 12(B)(6). On October 2, 2018, the trial court dismissed Noringtons suit against the DOC and DOC officials but allowed her action against Zoley and the DOC employees to proceed. On April 24, 2023, Zoley and the DOC employees filed a motion for summary judgment that argued there were no genuine issues of material fact regarding Noringtons claims and they were entitled to judgment as a matter of law. On July 27, 2023, the trial court granted that motion for summary judgment.
Discussion and Decision
[3] As an initial matter, we note Norington proceeds pro se. “[I]t is well settled that pro se litigants are held to the same standards as licensed attorneys, and thus they are required to follow procedural rules.” Martin v. Brown, 129 N.E.3d 283, 284 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019) (internal italics omitted). Pro se litigants who do not follow established rules of procedure “must be prepared to accept the consequences of their failure to do so.” Basic v. Amouri, 58 N.E.3d 980, 983-84 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016) (internal citations omitted), rehg denied.
[4] Indiana Appellate Rule 46(A)(8)(a) requires an appellants brief to contain “contentions of the appellant on the issues presented, supported by cogent reasoning.” As best we can ascertain, Norington argues genuine issues of material fact existed in her case that made the trial courts grant of summary judgment in favor of Zoley and the DOC employees erroneous. While Norington cites many cases and statutes regarding the general standards of review, she does not link that case law to any argument relevant to her case. Nor does she indicate which genuine issues of material fact require reversal of the trial courts order. Thus, we cannot understand or analyze her argument.
[5] While we prefer to decide cases on their merits, alleged errors are waived when an appellants noncompliance with the Indiana Rules of Appellate Procedure is so substantial it impedes our appellate consideration of the errors. Perry v. Anonymous Physician 1, 25 N.E.3d 103, 105 n.1 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014), trans. denied. Here, we are unable to determine whether any of Noringtons arguments have merit because they are unintelligible. Moreover, none of her assertions on appeal suggest any reason the trial courts decision should be reversed. Therefore, her egregious violation of Indiana Appellate Rule 46(A)(8)(a) substantially impedes our review of any issues she attempts to raise and thus waives the issues she purports to present from our review. See, e.g., Martin v. Hunt, 130 N.E.3d 135, 138 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019) (issue waived for violations of Indiana Appellate Rules to the extent that we were unable to ascertain Martins argument).
Conclusion
[6] Pursuant to Indiana Appellate Rule 46(A)(8)(a), Norington was required to support her appeal with a cogent argument. She did not do so. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court.
[7] Affirmed.
May, Judge.
Vaidik, J., and Kenworthy, J., concur.