Court Opinion

ID: 2921746
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-11 02:26:02.281674+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:57:07.245596
License: Public Domain

NUMBER 13-02-668-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
____________________________________________________________________

BOBBY J. LAY AND DEBRA L. LAY,                                  Appellants,

v.

EDWINA D. STRANAHAN, INDIVIDUALLY, ET AL.,               Appellees.
____________________________________________________________________

On appeal from the 36th District Court of Aransas County, Texas.
____________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Hinojosa, Rodriguez, and Castillo
Opinion Per Curiam

         Appellants, BOBBY J. LAY AND DEBRA L. LAY, perfected an appeal from a
judgment entered by the 36th District Court of Aransas County, Texas, in cause
number A-01-0414-CV-A.  The clerk’s record was filed on April 2, 2003.  No
reporter’s record was filed.   Appellants’ brief was due on May 2, 2003.  To date, no
appellate brief has been received.
         When the appellant has failed to file a brief in the time prescribed, the Court
may dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution, unless the appellant reasonably
explains the failure and the appellee is not significantly injured by the appellant’s failure
to timely file a brief.  Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a)(1).
         On May 10, 2004, notice was given to all parties that this appeal was subject
to dismissal pursuant to Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a)(1).  Appellants were given ten days to
explain why the cause should not be dismissed for failure to file a brief.  To date,
appellants have failed to file an appellate brief or to respond to this Court’s notice. 
Appellees have filed a motion to dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution.
         The Court, having examined and fully considered the documents on file,
appellants’ failure to file a proper appellate brief, this Court’s notice, and appellants’
failure to respond, and appellees’ motion to dismiss for want of prosecution, is of the
opinion that the appeal should be dismissed for want of prosecution.  Appellees’
motion to dismiss the appeal is GRANTED, and the appeal is hereby DISMISSED FOR
WANT OF PROSECUTION.
                                                               PER CURIAM

Opinion delivered and filed
this the 10th day of June, 2004