Court Opinion

ID: 9895318
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-06 18:09:44.012091+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:12:03.313812
License: Public Domain

Opinion issued October 31, 2023

                                        In The

                                  Court of Appeals
                                       For The

                           First District of Texas
                             ————————————
                                  NO. 01-23-00430-CV
                             ———————————
                          IVAN MONTALVO, Appellant
                                          V.
                        CITY OF HITCHCOCK, Appellee

                    On Appeal from the 122nd District Court
                           Galveston County, Texas
                       Trial Court Case No. 21-CV-1200

                           MEMORANDUM OPINION

      Appellant, Ivan Montalvo, filed a notice of appeal from the trial court’s

February 21, 2023 final judgment dismissing the underlying cause for want of

prosecution. Appellant has failed to timely file a brief. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.6(a)

(governing time to file brief).
      On June 9, 2023, the court reporter notified the Court that no reporter’s record

was taken in this case, and on June 26, 2023, the clerk’s record was filed.

Accordingly, appellant’s brief was due to be filed on or before July 26, 2023. See

TEX. R. APP. P. 38.6(a). Appellant did not file an appellant’s brief.

      On August 15, 2023, the Clerk of this Court notified appellant that this appeal

was subject to dismissal unless a brief, or a motion to extend time to file a brief, was

filed within ten days of the notice. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(a) (governing failure of

appellant to file brief), 42.3(b) (allowing involuntary dismissal of appeal for want of

prosecution), 42.3(c) (allowing involuntary dismissal of case for failure to comply

with notice from Clerk of Court). Despite the notice that this appeal was subject to

dismissal, appellant did not adequately respond.

      Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for want of prosecution. See TEX. R. APP.

P. 42.3(b), 43.2(f). All pending motions are dismissed as moot.

                                   PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Goodman, Rivas-Molloy, and Guerra.

                                           2