## In The Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06

- 21

- 00011

- CV

IN THE MATTER OF THE MARRIAGE OF KELSEY MARIE MCMULLEN AND RICHARD LEROY MCMULLEN, II, AND IN THE INTEREST OF A.R.M., E.L.M., A.M.M., AND E.R.M., CHILDREN

On Appeal from the 170th District Court McLennan County, Texas Trial Court No. 2020

- 1721

- 4

Before Morriss, C.J., Burgess and Stevens, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Justice Burgess2 

### ME MORANDUM OPINION

A ppellant Richard Leroy McMullen , II, filed a ti mely pro se notice of appeal on January 1 1 , 20 21

. 1 The clerk’ s record was filed February 2 , 20 21

. The reporter’s record was
filed March 25 , 20 21

. The original deadline for Mason’s appellate brief was April 26 , 20 21

. At
M cMullen ’s request, this Court extended the deadline for filing hi s appellat e brief until May 2 6 , 20 21

. On May 17 , 20 21 , we received a document that purported to be M cMullen ’s appellate
brief. That same day, we sent M cMullen a letter explaining that , for numerous reasons, the
docume nt we receiv ed was inadequate to serve as a brief because it did not meet the requirements of Rule 38.1 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P . 38.1. In our letter, we provided M cMullen with a detailed explanation of why the docume nt he provid ed to this Court failed to comply with Rule 38.1. We informed M cMullen that , if he did not file a brief that complied with Rule 38.1 by June 24 , 20 21 , this Court could dismiss the appeal

. On June 24 , 20 21 , M cMullen provided this C our t with a second doc ument that we
construed as a revised brief. That document also failed to comply with the requirements of Rule 38.1. Consequently, o n June 24 , 20 21 , we sent M cMullen a letter informing him that the revised brief, like the first brief he submitt ed, was ina dequate to serve as a brief because it failed to meet the requirements of Rule 38.1, subsections ( d ), (g) and (i) , of the Texas Rules of Appellate

1 Originally appealed to the T enth Court of Appeals, this case was transferred to this Court by the Texas Supreme Court pursuant to Section 73.001 of the Te xas Government Code. See T EX

. G OV ’ T C ODE A NN

. § 7 3.001. We are unaware of any conflict between precedent of the T enth Court of Appeals and that of this Court on any relevant issue. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 41.3.3

Procedure. We once again provided M cMullen with the opportunity to cure the deficienci es in
his b rief and in formed M cMullen that , if he did not file a compliant brief by J uly 26 , 20 2 1 , we would dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 38.8(a).
We did not receive a revised appellate brief in response to our July 26 , 20 21, letter

. Inste ad, we received a letter from McMullen acknowledging that he was unable to provide this Court with a compliant brief. As a result, McMullen’s appeal is ripe for dismissal. P ursuant to Rules 38.8 and 42.3 of the Texas Rule s of Appel late Procedure, we dism i ss this appeal for want of prosecution. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 38.8, 42.3; see also Running v. City of Athens , No. 12

- 18

- 00047

- CV, 2018 WL 2326775, at * 1 (Tex. App.

— Tyler , May 2 3 , 201 8 , no pet. ) (mem. op.)

.

Ralph K. Burgess Justice
Date Sub m itted: July 28 , 2021 Date Decided: July 29 , 2021