From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Butler v. Hobbs

SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS
Apr 12, 2012
2012 Ark. 162 (Ark. 2012)

Opinion

No. 11-1151

04-12-2012

DAVID RUSSELL BUTLER APPELLANT v. RAY HOBBS APPELLEE


APPELLEE'S MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL [JEFFERSON COUNTY

CIRCUIT COURT, CV 2011-491, HON. JODI RAINES DENNIS, JUDGE]


MOTION GRANTED.


PER CURIAM

On November 18, 2011, appellant David Russell Butler lodged in this court an appeal from an order entered in the Jefferson County Circuit Court that dismissed his pro se petition for writ of mandamus. Appellant was informed that his brief-in-chief was due here no later than December 28, 2011. Appellant did not file a motion for extension of time to file the brief, nor has he sought to file a belated brief or taken any other action to pursue the appeal. Now before us is the appellee's motion to dismiss the appeal for failure to file a brief.

The appellee's motion is granted pursuant to Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 4-5 (2011). Failure of an appellant who is acting pro se to file a brief in an appeal is cause for dismissal of the appeal. Barker v. Hobbs, 2011 Ark. 420 (per curiam); Ingold v. State, 2009 Ark. 611 (per curiam); see also Vickers v. State, 2009 Ark. 585 (per curiam); Pineda v. State, 2009 Ark. 554 (per curiam).

Motion granted.


Summaries of

Butler v. Hobbs

SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS
Apr 12, 2012
2012 Ark. 162 (Ark. 2012)
Case details for

Butler v. Hobbs

Case Details

Full title:DAVID RUSSELL BUTLER APPELLANT v. RAY HOBBS APPELLEE

Court:SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS

Date published: Apr 12, 2012

Citations

2012 Ark. 162 (Ark. 2012)

Citing Cases

Smith v. Hobbs

He has taken no action to pursue the appeal. Failure of an appellant who is acting pro se to file a brief in…

Farnsworth v. State

He has taken no action to pursue the appeal. Failure of an appellant who is acting pro se to file a brief in…