Roderick L. Reese v. Steven Bernhousen, Correctional Officer, TDCJ-CID, and Brad Casal, Stevenson Unit Senior Warden, TDCJ-CID

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: August 30, 2005
• Docket: 13-05-00119-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

                             NUMBER13-05-119-CV

                         COURT OF APPEALS

               THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                  CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

_______________________________________________________

RODERICK L. REESE,                                                Appellant,

                                           v.

STEVEN BERNHOUSEN, CORRECTIONAL

OFFICER, TDCJ-CID, ET AL.,                                     Appellees.

                  On appeal from the 267th District Court

                           of De Witt County, Texas.

                     MEMORANDUM OPINION

                Before Justices Hinojosa, Yañez, and Garza

                       Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

Appellant, RODERICK L. REESE, perfected an appeal from a judgment entered by the  267th District Court of De Witt County, Texas, in cause number 04-11-19824.  The clerk=s record was filed on May 20, 2005.  No reporter=s record was filed.  Appellant=s brief was due on June 20, 2005.  To date, no 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 July 21, 2005, 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 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

Memorandum Opinion delivered and

filed this the 30th day of August, 2005