Gary Ford v. Beadle Moore, Jr., Nancy Moore Blaylock, Brian Dewitt Tomlinson, Marjorie Harvey Burton, and Jerome Moore, Trustees

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: March 3, 2005
• Docket: 13-03-00467-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

NUMBER 13-03-467-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________________

GARY FORD,                                                                   Appellant,

v.

BEADLE MOORE, JR., ET AL.,                                            Appellees.

____________________________________________________________________

On appeal from the County Court of Matagorda County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Hinojosa, Yañez, and Garza

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

         Appellant, GARY FORD, perfected an appeal from a judgment entered by the County Court of Matagorda County, Texas, in cause number 4773. The clerk’s record was filed on January 26, 2004 . The reporter’s record was filed on March 9, 2004. Appellant’s brief was due on May 10, 2004. 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 January 11, 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. On January 24, 2005, appellant filed a motion for permission to proceed with appeal and motion for extension of time to file brief. Appellees have filed a motion to dismiss the appeal.

         The Court, having examined and fully considered the documents on file, is of the opinion that the appeal should be dismissed for want of prosecution. Appellant’s motion for permission to proceed with appeal and motion for extension of time to file brief is DENIED. Appellees’ motion to dismiss the appeal is GRANTED, and the appeal is hereby DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION.

                                                               PER CURIAM

Memorandum Opinion delivered and filed

this the 3^rd day of March, 2005