Court Opinion

ID: 2921630
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-11 02:24:38.89356+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:50:25.474196
License: Public Domain

NUMBER 13-03-409-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
____________________________________________________________________

KERMIT JAMES AND ALL OCCUPANTS,                             Appellant,

v.

LOCH KATRINE BUSINESS PARK, L.L.P.,                              Appellee.
____________________________________________________________________

On appeal from the County Civil Court at Law No. 2
of Harris County, Texas.
____________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Hinojosa and Yañez
Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

         Appellant, KERMIT JAMES AND ALL OCCUPANTS, perfected an appeal from
a judgment entered by the County Civil Court at Law No. 2 of Harris County, Texas,
in cause number 792305.  The clerk’s record was filed on October 2, 2003.  The
reporter’s record was filed on October 6, 2003.   Appellant’s brief was due on
November 5, 2003.  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 May 5, 2004, 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.  To date, no
response has been received.
         The Court, having examined and fully considered the documents on file,
appellant’s failure to file a proper appellate brief, this Court’s notice, and appellant’s
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 22nd day of July, 2004