Court Opinion

ID: 2926049
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-11 22:22:01.888172+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:56:23.475805
License: Public Domain

NUMBER 13-09-00310-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG 

______________________________________________________________
 
JAIME ALBERTO RODRIGUEZ, 	Appellant,

v.

CAPITAL ONE, N. A.,	Appellee. 
	____________________________________________________________

On appeal from the County Court at Law No. 1 

of Hidalgo County, Texas.

______________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Yañez, Benavides, and Vela

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam
	The appellant's brief in the above cause was due on July 3, 2009.  On October 23,
2009, the Clerk of the Court notified appellant that the brief had not been timely filed and
that the appeal was subject to dismissal for want of prosecution under Texas Rule of
Appellate Procedure 38.8(a)(1), unless within ten days from the date of receipt of this
letter, appellant reasonably explained the failure and the appellee was not significantly
injured by the appellant's failure to timely file a brief.  To date, no response has been
received from appellant.  
	Appellant has failed to either reasonably explain his failure to file a brief, file a
motion for extension of time to file his brief, or file his brief.  Accordingly, the appeal is
DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION.  See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a), 42.3(b). 
										PER CURIAM

Delivered and filed the
10th day of December, 2009.