Summary
dismissing appeal, in part, for want of jurisdiction when no timely objections were made to commissioners' award
Summary of this case from Muhammad v. Plains Pipeline, L.P.Opinion
No. 05-04-01714-CV
Opinion Filed July 5, 2005.
On Appeal from County Court at Law No. 3, Dallas County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. cc-04-6258-c.
Dismiss.
Before Chief Justice THOMAS and Justices LANG-MIERS and MAZZANT.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This is the appeal of a September 15, 2004 special commissioners' award in an eminent domain case made final by the county court at law on October 13, 2004. The record does not indicate that any timely objection was made to the trial court regarding the award of the commissioners. When no timely objection is made to the award of the commissioners in an eminent domain case, and the court enters judgment based on that award, there is no right of appeal. See Rose v. State, 497 S.W.2d 444, 445 (Tex. 1973); Svoboda v. State, 612 S.W.2d 229, 230-31 (Tex.Civ.App.-Tyler 1981, no writ).
By letter dated March 29, 2005, we informed appellant that his amended brief was due to be filed with the Court within ten days. Additionally, we instructed appellant to provide in his amended brief the basis for the Court's jurisdiction over this matter. Appellant was instructed that failure to file the amended brief with an explanation of the basis for the Court's jurisdiction would result in the dismissal of this appeal for want of prosecution and want of jurisdiction. Appellant has failed to file an amended brief or any type of response to the Court's inquiry regarding jurisdiction.
Accordingly, on the Court's own motion, this appeal is DISMISSED for want of prosecution and want of jurisdiction. See Tex.R.App.P. 42.3(a), (b).