Court Opinion

ID: 2919987
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-11 00:50:38.552258+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:57:19.275324
License: Public Domain

NUMBER 13-00-437-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI
____________________________________________________________________

RICKY LEE MOULDER,	Appellant,

v.

WARDEN THOMAS PRASFIKA, ET AL.,	Appellees.

____________________________________________________________________

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

O P I N I O N

Before Justices Dorsey, Rodriguez, and Castillo

Opinion Per Curiam

	Appellant, RICKY LEE MOULDER, perfected an appeal from a
judgment entered by the   36th District Court of Bee County, Texas, in
cause number B-99-1401-0-CV-A.  The clerk's record was filed on
October 10, 2000.  No reporter's record was filed.  Appellant's brief was
due on November 9, 2000.  Appellant's brief was received on November
29, 2000; however, said brief was untimely filed and failed to comply
with the Rules of Appellate Procedure.  Appellant was directed to file an
amended brief and a motion for leave to file brief late on or before
December 11, 2000.  To date, no proper 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 January 30, 2001, notice was given to all parties that this
appeal was subject to dismissal pursuant to Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a)(1). 
Appellant was given ten days to explain why the cause should not be
dismissed for failure to file a proper brief.  To date, no response has
been received.

	The Court, having examined and fully considered the documents
on file, appellant's failure to file a proper appellate brief, this Court's
notice, and appellant's failure to respond, is of the opinion that the
appeal should be dismissed for want of prosecution.  The appeal is
hereby DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION.

							PER CURIAM

Do not publish.

Tex. R. App. P. 47.3.

Opinion delivered and filed

this the 22nd day of February, 2001