Dalila Mawusi Bailey v. Raymond Carlo Carranza

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedDecember 18, 2025
Docket01-25-00633-CV
StatusPublished

This text of Dalila Mawusi Bailey v. Raymond Carlo Carranza (Dalila Mawusi Bailey v. Raymond Carlo Carranza) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Dalila Mawusi Bailey v. Raymond Carlo Carranza, (Tex. Ct. App. 2025).

Opinion

Opinion issued December 18, 2025

In The Court of Appeals For The

First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-25-00633-CV ——————————— DALILA MAWUSI BAILEY, Appellant V. RAYMOND CARLO CARRANZA, Appellee

On Appeal from 306th District Court Galveston County, Texas Trial Court Case No. 24-FD-2523

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant Dalila Mawusi Bailey filed her notice of appeal on August 13, 2025.

Appellant did not pay her appellate filing fee or establish indigence for purposes of

appellate costs. See TEX. R. APP. P. 5, 20.1; see also TEX. GOV’T CODE §§ 51.207,

51.208, 51.941(a), 101.041; Order, Fees Charged in the Supreme Court, in Civil Cases in the Courts of Appeals, and Before the Judicial Panel on Multi-District

Litigation, and in the Business Court, Misc. Docket No. 24-9047 (Tex. July 26,

2024), reprinted in TEX. R. APP. P. app. A § B(1) (listing fees in courts of appeals).

The Clerk of this Court notified Appellant that unless she paid the appellate filing

fee by October 10, 2025, her appeal could be dismissed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(b).

To date, Appellant has not paid the appellate filing fee nor established indigence for

purposes of appellate costs.

Also, Appellant failed to file a brief. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.6(a), 38.8(a). On

November 5, 2025, the Clerk of this Court notified Appellant that her appellate brief

was past due, and her appeal was subject to dismissal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(a),

42.3(b), 43.2(f). We directed Appellant to file her brief and a motion requesting an

extension to file the brief within 10 days of our notice. Appellant did not respond.

See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(b), (c).

We dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(a),

42.3(b)–(c), 43.2(f). We deny any pending motions as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Rivas-Molloy, Guiney, and Morgan.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Dalila Mawusi Bailey v. Raymond Carlo Carranza, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dalila-mawusi-bailey-v-raymond-carlo-carranza-texapp-2025.