Court Opinion

ID: 2922042
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-11 02:51:39.452383+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:50:44.160067
License: Public Domain

NUMBER13-05-318-CV
 
                         COURT OF APPEALS
 
               THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
 
                  CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
________________________________________________________   _________
 
JAMES H. MAPLES AND KATHY MAPLES,                  Appellants,
 
                                           v.
 
JOHNNY PARTAIN AND TERESA PARTAIN,                  Appellees.
_______________________________________________________   __________
 
              On appeal from County
Court at Law No. One
                           of Hidalgo
County, Texas.
_______________________________________________________
__  ________
 
                     MEMORANDUM OPINION
 
              Before Justices
Rodriguez, Castillo, and Garza
                       Memorandum Opinion Per
Curiam
 

Appellants, JAMES H. MAPLES AND KATHY MAPLES, perfected
an appeal from a judgment entered by County Court at Law No. One
of Hidalgo County, Texas, in cause number CL-29,530-A.  The clerk=s record was filed on May 23, 2005.  The reporter=s record was filed on September 9,
2005.  Appellants= brief was due on October 10, 2005.  To date,
no appellate brief has been received.
When the appellant has failed to file a brief in the time prescribed,
the Court may dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution, unless the appellant
reasonably explains the failure and the appellee is not significantly injured
by the appellant=s failure to timely
file a brief.  Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a)(1).
On October 28, 2005, notice was given to all parties
that this appeal was subject to dismissal pursuant to Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a)(1). 
Appellants were given ten days to explain why the cause should not be
dismissed for failure to file a brief. 
To date, no response has been received.
The Court, having examined and fully considered the documents on file,
appellants= failure to file a
proper appellate brief, this Court=s notice, and
appellants= failure to respond,
is of the opinion that the appeal should be dismissed for want of
prosecution.  The appeal is hereby
DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION.
PER CURIAM
Memorandum Opinion
delivered and filed
this the 1st
day of December, 2005.