Court Opinion

ID: 9555574
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-14 15:08:27.69649+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:36:50.078437
License: Public Domain

Opinion issued August 10, 2023

                                      In The

                              Court of Appeals
                                     For The

                          First District of Texas
                           ————————————
                              NO. 01-23-00035-CV
                           ———————————
                     MAX EDWARD GIBSON, Appellant
                                         V.
     OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS, Appellee

                   On Appeal from the 424th District Court
                          Burnet County, Texas1
                        Trial Court Case No. 34,767

                         MEMORANDUM OPINION

1
     Pursuant to its docket equalization authority, the Supreme Court of Texas
     transferred this appeal to this Court. See Misc. Docket No. 22–9115 (Tex. Dec. 20,
     2022); see also TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 73.001 (authorizing transfer of cases);
     TEX. R. APP. P. 41.3
      Appellant, Max Edward Gibson, proceeding pro se, filed a notice of appeal

from the trial court’s September 8, 2022 order in this suit for modification of a

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

(governing time to file brief).

      The reporter’s record was filed on March 2, 2023, and the clerk’s record was

filed on March 17, 2023. Accordingly, appellant’s brief was due to be filed on or

before April 17, 2023. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.6(a). Appellant did not file an

appellant’s brief.

      On May 2, 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 Kelly, Landau, and Farris.

                                            2