Kenneth Murray Locke v. Texas Department of Family and Protective Services

Court of Appeals of Texas

Kenneth Murray Locke v. Texas Department of Family and Protective Services

DecidedSeptember 14, 2006

Docket13-06-00322-CV

StatusPublished

This text of Kenneth Murray Locke v. Texas Department of Family and Protective Services (Kenneth Murray Locke v. Texas Department of Family and Protective Services) 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

Kenneth Murray Locke v. Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, (Tex. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

NUMBER 13-06-322-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________

KENNETH MURRAY LOCKE, Appellant,

v.

TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY AND

PROTECTIVE SERVICES, Appellee.

On appeal from the 119th District Court

of Tom Green County, Texas.

______________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Yañez and Garza

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

Appellant, KENNETH MURRAY LOCKE, perfected an appeal from a judgment entered by the 119th District Court of Tom Green County, Texas, in cause number B-04-120-CPS. No clerk's record has been filed due to appellant's failure to pay or make arrangements to pay the clerk's fee for preparing the clerk's record.

If the trial court clerk fails to file the clerk's record because the appellant failed to pay or make arrangements to pay the clerk's fee for preparing the clerk's record, the appellate court may dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution unless the appellant was entitled to proceed without payment of costs. Tex. R. App. P. 37.3(b).

On August 7, 2006, notice was given to all parties that this appeal was subject to dismissal pursuant to Tex. R. App. P. 37.3(b). Appellant was given ten days to explain why the cause should not be dismissed. To date, no response has been received from appellant.

The Court, having examined and fully considered the documents on file, appellant's failure to pay or make arrangements to pay the clerk's fee for preparing the clerk's record, this Court's notice, and appellant's failure to respond, is of the opinion that the appeal should be dismissed for want of prosecution. The appeal is hereby DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION.

PER CURIAM

Memorandum Opinion delivered and filed

this the 14th day of September, 2006.

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