Court Opinion

ID: 3122255
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-10-16 14:21:13.033228+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:54:32.911787
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.