Court Opinion

ID: 2921102
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-11 01:51:24.00808+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:57:27.733992
License: Public Domain

NUMBER 13-02-509-CV
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________________

MAREY N. GARCIA MAYO , Appellant,

v.

ELIZABETH COATES MADDUX, ET AL. , Appellees.
____________________________________________________________________

On appeal from the 332nd District Court
of Hidalgo County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Hinojosa, Yañez, and Garza
Opinion Per Curiam

 Appellant, MAREY N. GARCIA MAYO , perfected an appeal from a judgment entered by the 332nd District Court of
Hidalgo County, Texas, in cause number C-6239-95-F .  The clerk's record was filed on September 25, 2002 .  No reporter's
record was filed .   Appellant's brief was due on October 25, 2002 . To date, appellant has failed to file a proper appellate
brief.
 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 February 10, 2003, notice was given to all parties that this appeal was subject to dismissal pursuant to Tex. R. App. P.
38.8(a)(1).  Appellant was given ten days to explain why the cause should not be dismissed for failure to file a brief.
Appellant has filed a motion for extension of time to file brief.  Appellees have filed a an opposition to appellant's motion. 
Appellees request that this Court deny appellant's motion on the grounds that appellant has not given a reasonable
explanation for failure to timely file as required by the rules.  Appellees have also filed a motion to dismiss the appeal for
want of prosecution.
 The Court, having examined and fully considered the documents on file, appellant's failure to file a proper appellate brief,
this Court's notice,  appellant's motion for extension of time to file brief, appellees' response, and appellees' motion to
dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution, is of the opinion that the appeal should be dismissed for want of prosecution. 
Appellant's motion for extension of time to file brief is DENIED.  Appellees' motion to dismiss appeal for want of
prosecution is GRANTED, and the appeal is hereby DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION.

PER CURIAM

Opinion delivered and filed
this the 10th day of April, 2003