William A. Long, Sr. v. John Carroll Boudreaux

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedApril 10, 2008
Docket13-07-00374-CV
StatusPublished

This text of William A. Long, Sr. v. John Carroll Boudreaux (William A. Long, Sr. v. John Carroll Boudreaux) 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
William A. Long, Sr. v. John Carroll Boudreaux, (Tex. Ct. App. 2008).

Opinion

NUMBER 13-07-00374-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG ______________________________________________________________

WILLIAM A. LONG, SR., Appellant,

v.

JOHN CARROLL BOUDREAUX, Appellee. _____________________________________________________________

On appeal from the 130th District Court of Matagorda County, Texas. ______________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Yañez, Rodriguez, and Vela Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

Appellant, William A. Long, Sr., pro se, appealed a judgment rendered against him

in cause number 05-E-0499-C in the 130th District Court of Matagorda County, Texas. On

December 18, 2007, the Clerk of this Court notified appellant that the clerk's record in the

above cause was originally due on August 15, 2007, and that the District Clerk of

Matagorda County, Becky Denn, had notified this Court that appellant failed to make arrangements for payment of the clerk's record. The Clerk of this Court notified appellant

of this defect so that steps could be taken to correct the defect, if it could be done. See

TEX . R. APP. P. 37.3, 42.3(b),(c). Appellant was advised that, if the defect was not

corrected within ten days from the date of receipt of this notice, the appeal would be

dismissed for want of prosecution. Appellant failed to respond to the Court’s notice.

The Court, having considered the documents on file and appellant’s failure to

respond, is of the opinion that the appeal should be dismissed. See id. 37.3, 42.3(b),(c).

Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED for want of prosecution. Pending motions are

DISMISSED AS MOOT.

PER CURIAM

Memorandum Opinion delivered and filed this the 10th day of April, 2008.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
William A. Long, Sr. v. John Carroll Boudreaux, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/william-a-long-sr-v-john-carroll-boudreaux-texapp-2008.