James Edward Lewis v. Janie Cockrell, Director, T.D.C.J.

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: February 28, 2008
• Docket: 13-04-00681-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

NUMBER 13-04-681-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

JAMES EDWARD LEWIS, Appellant,

v.

JANIE COCKRELL DIRECTOR:

T.D.C.J., ET AL., Appellees.

On appeal from the 267th District Court of De Witt County, Texas.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Yañez and Benavides

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Yañez

Appellant, James Edward Lewis, is a pro se inmate who brought suit against prison personnel. Appellant appeals from a trial court judgment dismissing his suit for want of prosecution. We affirm.

On May 28, 2003, appellant filed suit against appellees, alleging that his confinement was unconstitutional for several reasons. The suit was dismissed for want of prosecution on December 6, 2004.

Appellant raises five issues on appeal. In these issues, appellant asserts that his confinement is unconstitutional. Appellant's brief does not purport to address the propriety of the trial court's order dismissing his case for want of prosecution. Therefore, appellant has failed to preserve any error arising from the trial court's order dismissing his case for want of prosecution. ⁽¹⁾ Accordingly, we overrule appellant's five issues and affirm the trial court's judgment.

LINDA REYNA YAÑEZ,

Justice

Memorandum Opinion delivered and filed

this the 28th day of February, 2008.

1. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.1(e), (h); Pat Baker Co. v. Wilson, 971 S.W.2d 447, 450 (Tex. 1998) ("It is axiomatic that an appellate court cannot reverse a trial court's judgment absent properly assigned error."); see also Wheeler v. Green, 157 S.W.3d 439, 444 (Tex. 2005) (stating that "pro se litigants are not exempt from the rules of procedure").