Richard Rogers, Jr. v. Mary Sanchez

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedAugust 20, 2010
Docket03-10-00236-CV
StatusPublished

This text of Richard Rogers, Jr. v. Mary Sanchez (Richard Rogers, Jr. v. Mary Sanchez) 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
Richard Rogers, Jr. v. Mary Sanchez, (Tex. Ct. App. 2010).

Opinion

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN




NO. 03-10-00236-CV

Richard Rogers, Jr., Appellant



v.



Mary Sanchez, Appellee



FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY, 425TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. 09-1485-F425, HONORABLE MARK J. SILVERSTONE, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N


After receiving notice from the trial court's clerk's office that no payment or arrangement to pay had been made by appellant Richard Rogers, Jr., this Court's clerk's office sent notice by letter dated June 28, 2010, to appellant that the clerk's record was overdue, stating the following:



The Clerk of this Court filed appellant's notice of appeal on April 22, 2010. Notice was received from the district clerk's office of Williamson County, Texas, on June 11, 2010, indicating appellant has neither paid, nor made arrangements for payment, for the clerk's record. Accordingly, the clerk's record will not be timely filed.



Appellant is requested to make arrangements for the record and submit a status report regarding this appeal. A response regarding this matter is requested by this Court on or before July 08, 2010. Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of this appeal for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 37.3(b).



If appellant has not already done so, he is instructed to make a written request to the court reporter and make arrangements for payment of the record. If appellant does not wish to pursue this appeal please file a motion to dismiss.



No clerk's record and no response have been filed.

This appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 37.3(b), 42.3.



G. Alan Waldrop, Justice

Before Justices Patterson, Waldrop and Henson

Dismissed for Want of Prosecution

Filed: August 20, 2010

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Richard Rogers, Jr. v. Mary Sanchez, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/richard-rogers-jr-v-mary-sanchez-texapp-2010.