David Rodriguez v. James Stafford

Opinion

Opinion issued October 4, 2016

In The

Court of Appeals

For The

First District of Texas

established indigence for purposes of appellate costs. See TEX. R. APP. P. 20.1,

37.3(b). After being notified by this Court’s Order and Notice of Intent to Dismiss

for Want of Prosecution on August 16, 2016, that this appeal was subject to dismissal

for failure to pay the required clerk’s record fee, appellant did not timely respond.

See TEX. R. APP. P. 37.3(b), 42.3(b).

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for nonpayment of all required fees and

for want of prosecution. See TEX. R. APP. P. 37.3(b), 42.3(b), (c). We dismiss any

pending motions as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Jennings, Keyes, and Brown.

Footnotes

1. NO. 01-15-00602-CV ——————————— DAVID RODRIGUEZ, Appellant V. JAMES STAFFORD, Appellee On Appeal from the 295th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2013-64247 MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant, David Rodriguez, proceeding pro se, appealed from the trial court’s order granting the appellee’s motion for summary judgment, signed on June 15, 2015. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1(a)(1). However, appellant has neither paid nor made arrangements to pay the fee for preparing the clerk’s record and he has not