Jocelyn Rubins v. Katelynn Anderson
Opinion
Opinion issued November 7, 2024
In The
Court of Appeals
For The
First District of Texas
The clerk’s record was filed in this appeal on August 2, 2024, and on August 5, 2024, the court reporter informed the Court that no record was taken. Appellant’s brief was due to be filed on or before September 4, 2024. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.6(a). Appellant did not file an appellant’s brief.
On September 16, 2024, the Clerk of this Court notified appellant that this appeal was subject to dismissal unless a brief, or a motion to extend time to file a brief, was filed within ten days of the notice. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(a) (governing failure of appellant to file brief), 42.3(b) (allowing involuntary dismissal of appeal for want of prosecution), 42.3(c) (allowing involuntary dismissal of case for failure to comply with notice from Clerk of Court). Despite the notice that this appeal was subject to dismissal, appellant did not adequately respond to the September 16, 2024 notice.
Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. See TEX. R. APP.
P. 42.3(b), 43.2(f). We dismiss any pending motions as moot.
PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Chief Justice Adams and Justices Hightower and Countiss.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Jocelyn Rubins v. Katelynn Anderson (Jocelyn Rubins v. Katelynn Anderson) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.