Court of Appeals of Texas,
Alonzo BRADLEY, Appellant
PITNEY BOWES, INC., Appellee.
Aug. 4, 2011.
From the 211th District Court of Denton County, L. Dee Shipman, Judge.
Attorneys & Firms
Alonzo Bradley, Flower Mound, TX, pro se.
Bobby G. Pryor, Pryor & Bruce, Rockwall, TX, for appellee.
PANEL: MEIER, J.; and DIXON W. HOLMAN (Senior Justice, Retired, Sitting by Assignment).
TERRIE LIVINGSTON, Chief Justice.
*1 Alonzo Bradley sued Pitney Bowes, Inc. and SupportKids, Inc. d/b/a CSE Child Enforcement contending that SupportKids wrongfully attempted to collect child support from him based on a void Louisiana order and that Pitney Bowes wrongfully garnished his wages based on that order. Appellant also alleged that Pitney Bowes had fired him from his area sales executive position because of a separate lawsuit that he had filed against Pitney Bowes attacking the void Louisiana order, not because of poor job performance, which was the reason given by Pitney Bowes. Appellant sued for an injunction to stop the wage withholding and for reinstatement to his former position with Pitney Bowes. Pitney Bowes moved for summary judgment, which the trial court granted. The trial court granted a default judgment for Bradley against SupportKids, which it did not appeal.
Appellant has failed to include Pitney Bowes’s summary judgment motion in the appellate record. Accordingly, he has failed to meet his burden to show reversible error. See McIntyre v. Lockheed Corp., 970 S.W.2d 695, 697–98 (Tex.App.—Fort Worth 1998, no pet.) (holding that proof of causation is required for recovery on termination action alleging retaliation for filing workers’ compensation claim).2
Accordingly, we overrule all of appellant’s issues and affirm the trial court’s judgment.
See Tex.R.App. P. 47.4.
See Tex.R. Civ. P. 166a(b), (c).