Court Opinion

ID: 9634263
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 13:07:53.459316+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:09:00.199237
License: Public Domain

Fourth Court of Appeals
                                      San Antonio, Texas
                                  MEMORANDUM OPINION
                                          No. 04-23-00260-CV

                                          Tony KUMAGAH,
                                              Appellant

                                                    v.

                       KB HOME, Alamo Title, Jeffrey Mezger, and Eddie Hall,
                                          Appellees

                      From the 288th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
                                    Trial Court No. 2022CI21422
                        Honorable Christine Vasquez-Hortick, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting:          Irene Rios, Justice
                  Beth Watkins, Justice
                  Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice

Delivered and Filed: August 16, 2023

DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION

           Appellees have filed a motion to dismiss this appeal citing appellant’s failure to pay court

costs. A filing fee of $205.00 was due when appellant filed his notice of appeal. See TEXAS

SUPREME COURT ORDER REGARDING FEES CHARGED IN THE SUPREME COURT, IN CIVIL CASES IN

THE COURTS OF APPEALS, AND BEFORE THE JUDICIAL PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION, Misc.

Docket No. 15-9158 (Tex. Aug. 28, 2015). On June 5, 2023, the clerk of the court notified

appellant of this deficiency by letter and requested payment of the fee no later than June 15, 2023.

On June 23, 2023, we ordered appellant to pay the filing fee on or before July 7, 2023. Our order
                                                                                      04-23-00260-CV

cautioned appellant that this appeal would be dismissed if the filing fee was not paid by the date

provided.

       The filing fee remains unpaid, and appellant has not filed a sworn statement of inability to

pay court costs. Further, the clerk’s record reflects that the trial court determined appellant is not

indigent when it denied appellant’s motion to proceed without payment of court costs and

ultimately dismissed appellant’s claims for failure to pay court costs.

       Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for want of prosecution. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a);

see also TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(c) (permitting appellate courts to dismiss an appeal when appellant

fails to comply with a court order). Appellees’ motion to dismiss is denied as moot.

                                                   PER CURIAM

                                                 -2-