Court Opinion

ID: 3126494
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-10-16 15:24:56.634645+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:37:21.771627
License: Public Domain

NUMBER 13-09-00431-CV

                               COURT OF APPEALS

                    THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                      CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
______________________________________________________________

HAROLD HIGGINS AND LONNIE HIGGINS,                                           APPELLANTS,

                                               v.

MATAGORDA COUNTY AND VAN VLECK
INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL.,            APPELLEES.
____________________________________________________________

             On Appeal from the 130th District Court
                  of Matagorda County, Texas.
______________________________________________________________

                           MEMORANDUM OPINION

            Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Yañez and Vela
                       Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

       The appellants’ brief in the above cause was due on December 4, 2009.1 On

January 5, 2010, the Clerk of the Court notified appellants that the brief had not been

1
 The brief was originally due on August 24, 2009. This Court subsequently granted appellants three
extensions of tim e to file the brief, extending the due date until Decem ber 4, 2009.
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, appellants reasonably explained the failure and the appellee was not

significantly injured by the appellants’ failure to timely file a brief. To date, no response has

been received from appellants. Appellee DOH Oil Company has filed a motion to dismiss

this appeal for want of prosecution.

       Appellants have failed to either reasonably explain the failure to file a brief, file a

motion for extension of time to file a brief, or file a brief. Accordingly, appellee DOH Oil

Company’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED and 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 11th
day of February, 2010.

                                               2