Court Opinion

ID: 3122253
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-10-16 14:21:11.467884+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:48:39.925687
License: Public Domain

NUMBER 13-10-00198-CV

                             COURT OF APPEALS

                   THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                      CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
____________________________________________________________

MICHAEL ANTHONY DE LOS SANTOS,                                                Appellant,

                                            v.

MARY GIBSON AKA MARY MOLINA,                        Appellee.
____________________________________________________________

             On appeal from the 117th District Court
                   of Nueces County, Texas.
____________________________________________________________

                          MEMORANDUM OPINION
       Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Yañez and Garza
                   Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam
       The appellant's brief in the above cause was due on June 25, 2010. On July 20,

2010, 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 the

Court’s 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
31st day of August, 2010.

                                             2