RHONDA K. WOOD, Judge

MidFirst Bank filed a complaint for foreclosure against William Robinson. The complaint alleged that Robinson stopped making monthly payments on his house. MidFirst later filed a motion for summary judgment and attached an affidavit of debt to meet its summary-judgment burden. See Hoosier v. Interinsurance Exch. of Auto. Club, 2014 Ark. App. 120, ___ S.W.3d ___ (explaining both the lower-court standard for granting summary judgment as well as our standard of review on appeal). Once the burden shifted, Robinson failed to meet proof with proof by responding with an affidavit of his own or any evidence that would establish a disputed material fact. See id. After a hearing, the circuit court granted summary judgment. Robinson appeals, pro se, from that order. We affirm.

First, pro se appellants are held to the same standard as those represented by counsel. Moon v. Holloway, 353 Ark. 520, 110 S.W.3d 250 (2003). Second, we have held that we will not consider an issue if the appellant has failed to cite to any convincing legal authority in support of his argument. Hope Sch. Dist. v. Wilson, 2011 Ark. App. 219, 382 S.W.3d 782. The failure to develop a point legally or factually is reason enough to affirm the circuit court. Walters v. Dobbins, 2010 Ark. 260, 370 S.W.3d 209. Here, Robinson‘s one-page argument fails to cite any convincing legal authority. He has not developed his argument in any way; Robinson fails to specify any grounds on which we are to reverse. We therefore affirm the circuit court‘s order.

Affirmed.

PITTMAN and HIXSON, JJ., agree.

William Robinson, pro se appellant.

Wilson & Associates, PLLC, by: H. Keith Morrison and Samuel S. High, for appellee.