Court Opinion

ID: 2922682
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-11 03:00:00.53739+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:56:27.031419
License: Public Domain

NUMBER 13-04-431-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
____________________________________________________________________

DRED W. MARTIN,                                                           Appellant,

v.

WILLIAM T. OLIVER, D.D.S. AND WILLIAM T. 
OLIVER, D.D.S., INC.,                                                       Appellees.
____________________________________________________________________

On appeal from the 2nd 25th District Court
of Gonzales County, Texas.
____________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Hinojosa, Yañez, and Garza
Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

         Appellant, DRED W. MARTIN, perfected an appeal from a judgment entered by
the   2nd 25th District Court of Gonzales County, Texas, in cause number 21,983.  The
clerk’s record was filed on August 16, 2004.  The reporter’s record was filed on
November 18,2004 and January 10, 2005.   Appellant’s brief was due on February
9, 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 March 8, 2005, 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 7th day of April, 2005