Court Opinion

ID: 4671713
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2021-03-26 06:15:24.9371+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:02:46.752537
License: Public Domain

In The

                                Court of Appeals

                    Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

                               __________________

                               NO. 09-20-00288-CV
                               __________________

                  WINSTON CHARLES HERON, Appellant

                                         V.

               MICHAEL KEMP ADUDDELL, Appellee
__________________________________________________________________

               On Appeal from the 284th District Court
                     Montgomery County, Texas
                   Trial Cause No. 20-08-10306-CV
__________________________________________________________________

                          MEMORANDUM OPINION

      Appellant Winston Charles Heron filed a letter, which he designated as his

brief, but failed to provide a copy of the brief to lead counsel for appellee. On

February 12, 2021, we directed Heron to provide a copy of the brief to lead counsel

for appellee, certify the fact of service in the form provided by Rule 9.5(e) of the

Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, and file the certificate of service with the Court

of Appeals no later than February 22, 2021. See Tex. R. App. P. 9.5(e). On March

2, 2021, we notified the parties that the Court had not received a response from

                                          1
Heron and warned that if Heron failed to comply, the appeal would be submitted on

the record alone on March 12, 2021, which could result in dismissal for want of

prosecution. Heron has not filed the certificate or otherwise indicated that he served

a copy of the brief on appellee’s counsel.

      Heron failed to comply with a notice requiring a response within a specified

time and failed to prosecute his appeal by filing a brief that complies with the rules

regarding service on an opposing party. See Tex. R. App. P. 6.3(a), 9.5, 42.3. The

appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution.

      APPEAL DISMISSED.

                                                    PER CURIAM

Submitted on March 24, 2021
Opinion Delivered March 25, 2021

Before Golemon, C.J., Kreger and Johnson, JJ.

                                          2