Lawrence Edward Thompson and Charles Lamar Hicks v. Bobby Lumpkin, Timothy Fitzpatrick and Brian Smith

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: July 18, 2024
• Docket: 10-23-00419-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-23-00419-CV

LAWRENCE EDWARD THOMPSON AND CHARLES LAMAR HICKS, Appellants v.

BOBBY LUMPKIN, TIMOTHY FITZPATRICK AND BRIAN SMITH, Appellees

From the 278th District Court Walker County, Texas Trial Court No. 2330959

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellants Lawrence Edward Thompson and Charles Lamar Hicks, each acting

pro se, filed a joint notice of appeal purporting to appeal from a trial court judgment

rendered on December 1, 2023. Upon review of the record, it is not clear what Appellants

are attempting to appeal. The record does not contain a judgment dated December 1,

2023. Instead, the record contains a judgment dated March 8, 2024 that dismisses only Thompson's claims and does not address Hicks's claims. This judgment is not final. See

Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001). Additionally, Hicks did not join

Thompson's docketing statement or file his own docketing statement as required by the

rules. See TEX. R. APP. P. 9.1, 32.1.

By letter dated June 10, 2024, this Court's Clerk requested a response from

Thompson showing he is appealing from an appealable judgment and that he is in

compliance with Chapter 11 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. Also, by

letter of the same date, this Court's Clerk requested a response from Hicks showing

grounds for continuing the appeal and either filing a document adopting Thompson's

docketing statement or filing his own docketing statement. The Clerk's letters advised

Thompson and Hicks that if they do not respond to each of the issues raised in the notice

within twenty-one days from the date of the letter, the appeal would be dismissed. We

further warned Thompson and Hicks that the failure to respond to the June 10, 2024 letter

is an independent basis upon which the appeal can be dismissed.

Neither Thompson nor Hicks responded to our June 10, 2024 letter. Therefore, we

dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction and for failure to respond to a notice from the

Clerk requiring a response within a specified time. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3; Lehmann, 39

S.W.3d at 195.

STEVE SMITH Justice Thompson v. Lumpkin Page 2 Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Johnson, and Justice Smith Dismissed Opinion delivered and filed July 18, 2024 [CV06]

Thompson v. Lumpkin Page 3