KING

v.

GIARDINA

BILBREY, J.

Appellant challenges the trial court’s temporary injunction entered after an evidentiary hearing based on the court’s findings of fact, which Appellant claims are contrary to his asserted facts. In its appealable non-final order,∗ the trial court found that Appellant was provided sufficient notice of the hearing, yet he failed to appear. We affirm. In his second amended initial brief, Appellant argues that the facts found by the trial court are inaccurate and outweighed by his version of facts. In effect, Appellant’s position is that the court’s

∗ Fla. R. App. P. 9.130(a)(3)(B).

findings were not supported by competent substantial evidence. But Appellant failed to provide this court with a transcript of the hearing held on Appellee’s petition for the injunction and, after this court ordered the Clerk of Court in Columbia County to provide any transcript, no response was filed. “The burden of properly presenting a case to this court for review must . . . remain squarely upon the litigant, whether represented by counsel or not.” Steele v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 596 So. 2d 1190, 1192 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). Pro se litigants are bound by the same rules that apply to counsel. Cabrera v. Outdoor Empire, Inc., 134 So. 3d 573, 576 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014). Without a transcript of the hearing held on Appellee’s petition for temporary injunction, this court “must presume that the trial court’s judgment was based on evidence adduced at the hearing.” Snowden v. Wells Fargo Bank, 172 So. 3d 506, 508 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015) (cleaned up). Accordingly, Appellant’s assertions of fact in his second amended initial brief cannot establish that the trial court’s findings of fact were not supported by evidence adduced at the hearing. See McGee v. McGee, 264 So. 3d 1087, 1089 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019) (holding that the absence of transcript or substitute was fatal to appeal based on challenge to sufficiency of evidence to support factual findings). Summary affirmance under rule 9.315, Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure “is appropriate where the initial brief fails to present a preliminary basis for reversal.” Cabrera, 134 So. 3d at 576 (cleaned up). Because Appellant’s second amended initial brief presents no preliminary basis for reversal of the temporary injunction on appeal, we summarily affirm the order. AFFIRMED. WINOKUR and TANENBAUM, JJ., concur. _____________________________