Court Opinion

ID: 3104413
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-10-16 05:38:42.353466+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:25:48.360812
License: Public Domain

NUMBER 13-10-00497-CV

                             COURT OF APPEALS

                   THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                      CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
____________________________________________________________

EDGAR NANDIN,                                                                  Appellant,

                                            v.

TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY, KINGSVILLE,                   Appellee.
____________________________________________________________

              On Appeal from the 105th District Court
                    of Kleberg County, Texas.
____________________________________________________________

                          MEMORANDUM OPINION
        Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Rodriguez and Garza
                      Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

       The appellant's brief in the above cause was due on March 31, 2011. On April 29,

2011, 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
23rd day of June, 2011.

                                             2