From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Manning v. Cothes

COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
Nov 10, 2016
NUMBER 13-16-00425-CV (Tex. App. Nov. 10, 2016)

Opinion

NUMBER 13-16-00425-CV

11-10-2016

PAMELA MANNING, Appellant, v. CHARLES RANDALL COTHES, INDIVIDUALLY AND D/B/A MCDONALD'S OF BEEVILLE, MCDONALD'S #6798, MCDONALDS CORP. 042/0323, Appellees.


On appeal from the 36th District Court of Bee County, Texas.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Garza, Perkes, and Longoria
Memorandum OpinionPer Curiam

The appellant's brief in the above cause was due on September 19, 2016. On October 3, 2016, the Clerk of the Court notified appellant that the brief had not been timely filed and that the appeal was subject to dismissal for want of prosecution under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.8(a)(1), unless within ten days from the date of receipt of this letter, appellant reasonably explained the failure and the appellee was not significantly injured by the appellant's failure to timely file a brief. To date, no response has been received from appellant.

Appellant has failed to either reasonably explain the failure to file a brief, file a motion for extension of time to file the brief, or file the brief. Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(a), 42.3(b)(c).

PER CURIAM Delivered and filed the 10th day of November, 2016.


Summaries of

Manning v. Cothes

COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
Nov 10, 2016
NUMBER 13-16-00425-CV (Tex. App. Nov. 10, 2016)
Case details for

Manning v. Cothes

Case Details

Full title:PAMELA MANNING, Appellant, v. CHARLES RANDALL COTHES, INDIVIDUALLY AND…

Court:COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

Date published: Nov 10, 2016

Citations

NUMBER 13-16-00425-CV (Tex. App. Nov. 10, 2016)