Ricky Lee Moulder v. Warden Thomas Prasfika

Court of Appeals of Texas

Ricky Lee Moulder v. Warden Thomas Prasfika

DecidedFebruary 22, 2001

Docket13-00-00437-CV

StatusPublished

This text of Ricky Lee Moulder v. Warden Thomas Prasfika (Ricky Lee Moulder v. Warden Thomas Prasfika) 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

Ricky Lee Moulder v. Warden Thomas Prasfika, (Tex. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

NUMBER 13-00-437-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI

____________________________________________________________________

RICKY LEE MOULDER

, Appellant,

v.

WARDEN THOMAS PRASFIKA, ET AL.

, Appellees.

____________________________________________________________________

On appeal from the 36th District Court of Bee County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________________

O P I N I O N

Before Justices Dorsey, Rodriguez, and Castillo

Opinion Per Curiam

Appellant, RICKY LEE MOULDER, perfected an appeal from a judgment entered by the 36th District Court of Bee County, Texas, in cause number B-99-1401-0-CV-A. The clerk's record was filed on October 10, 2000. No reporter's record was filed. Appellant's brief was due on November 9, 2000. Appellant's brief was received on November 29, 2000; however, said brief was untimely filed and failed to comply with the Rules of Appellate Procedure. Appellant was directed to file an amended brief and a motion for leave to file brief late on or before December 11, 2000. To date, no proper appellate brief has been received.

When the appellant has failed to file a brief in the time prescribed, the Court may dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution, unless the appellant reasonably explains the failure and the appellee is not significantly injured by the appellant's failure to timely file a brief. Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a)(1).

On January 30, 2001, notice was given to all parties that this appeal was subject to dismissal pursuant to Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a)(1). Appellant was given ten days to explain why the cause should not be dismissed for failure to file a proper brief. To date, no response has been received.

The Court, having examined and fully considered the documents on file, appellant's failure to file a proper appellate brief, 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

Do not publish.

Tex. R. App. P. 47.3.

Opinion delivered and filed

this the 22nd day of February, 2001

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

NUMBER 13-00-437-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI

____________________________________________________________________

RICKY LEE MOULDER

, Appellant,

v.

WARDEN THOMAS PRASFIKA, ET AL.

, Appellees.

____________________________________________________________________

On appeal from the 36th District Court of Bee County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________________

O P I N I O N

Before Justices Dorsey, Rodriguez, and Castillo

Opinion Per Curiam

Appellant, RICKY LEE MOULDER, perfected an appeal from a judgment entered by the 36th District Court of Bee County, Texas, in cause number B-99-1401-0-CV-A. The clerk's record was filed on October 10, 2000. No reporter's record was filed. Appellant's brief was due on November 9, 2000. Appellant's brief was received on November 29, 2000; however, said brief was untimely filed and failed to comply with the Rules of Appellate Procedure. Appellant was directed to file an amended brief and a motion for leave to file brief late on or before December 11, 2000. To date, no proper appellate brief has been received.

When the appellant has failed to file a brief in the time prescribed, the Court may dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution, unless the appellant reasonably explains the failure and the appellee is not significantly injured by the appellant's failure to timely file a brief. Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a)(1).

On January 30, 2001, notice was given to all parties that this appeal was subject to dismissal pursuant to Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a)(1). Appellant was given ten days to explain why the cause should not be dismissed for failure to file a proper brief. To date, no response has been received.

The Court, having examined and fully considered the documents on file, appellant's failure to file a proper appellate brief, 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

Do not publish.

Tex. R. App. P. 47.3.

Opinion delivered and filed

this the 22nd day of February, 2001

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Ricky Lee Moulder v. Warden Thomas Prasfika, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ricky-lee-moulder-v-warden-thomas-prasfika-texapp-2001.