Tom Ragsdale v. FNALS, LLC

Opinion

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

__________________

NO. 09-25-00074-CV __________________

TOM RAGSDALE, Appellant

V.

FNALS, LLC, Appellee

__________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 6 Montgomery County, Texas Trial Cause No. 24-34282 __________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On February 24, 2025, Tom Ragsdale filed a notice of appeal from a final

judgment of the County Court at Law No. 6, signed on February 11, 2025. On May

14, 2025, the County Clerk notified the Court that the appellant neither paid for the

clerk’s record nor filed a designation of record. On May 14, 2025, we notified the

parties that the appellant had not established indigent status and that the clerk’s

record had not been filed due to the appellant’s failure to pay or to arrange to pay

the fee required to prepare the clerk’s record. We also warned the appellant that the

1 appeal could be dismissed for want of prosecution unless the appellant established

that the appellant had made the arrangements required to pay the fee or that he

needed more time to do so. See Tex. R. App. P. 37.3(b). After the Clerk sent the

parties a letter warning of the consequences of a failure to take the action necessary

to file the clerk’s record, the Court did not receive a response. On July 28, 2025, the

trial court clerk notified the appellate court that the appellant still had not submitted

the requested payment. That day the appellate clerk sent another notice warning that

the appeal could be dismissed for want of prosecution, but the Court did not receive

a response.

Due to the appellant’s failure to respond to a notice from the Clerk that

required a response within a specified time, and in the absence of a satisfactory

explanation that justifies the appellant’s failure to pay or make the arrangements

needed to pay for the clerk’s record to support the appeal, we dismiss the appeal for

want of prosecution. See id. 37.3(b), 42.3(b)-(c), 43.2(f).

APPEAL DISMISSED.

PER CURIAM

Submitted on August 28, 2025 Opinion Delivered August 29, 2025

Before Golemon, C.J., Wright and Chambers, JJ.