Rodney Lee Ardoin v. Jane Doe Tamez, Property Officer Institutional Division, Tdcj

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: December 19, 2002
• Docket: 13-02-00533-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

                                   NUMBER 13-02-533-CV

                             COURT OF APPEALS

                   THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                                CORPUS CHRISTI

____________________________________________________________________

RODNEY LEE ARDOIN,                                                          Appellant,

                                                   v.

JANE DOE TAMEZ, PROPERTY OFFICER

INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION, TDCJ,                                           Appellee.

____________________________________________________________________

                         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, RODNEY LEE ARDOIN, perfected an appeal from a judgment entered by the   36th District Court of Bee County, Texas, in cause number B-01-1488-0-CV-A-1.  The clerk=s record was filed on September 25, 2002.  No reporter=s record was filed.   Appellant=s brief was due on October 25, 2002. 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 November 4, 2002, 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

Do not publish.

Tex. R. App. P. 47.3.

Opinion delivered and filed

this the 19^th day of December, 2002