From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Ramos v. Castaneda

Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo
Apr 28, 2017
No. 07-16-00355-CV (Tex. App. Apr. 28, 2017)

Opinion

No. 07-16-00355-CV

04-28-2017

MARIA RAMOS, APPELLANT v. ANN MARIE CASTANEDA, APPELLEE


On Appeal from the County Court Deaf Smith County, Texas
Trial Court No. CI 2016-05623; Honorable D.J. Wagner, Presiding

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and PIRTLE, JJ.

Appellant, Maria G. Ramos, proceeding pro se, filed this appeal from a default judgment in favor of Appellee, Ann Marie Castaneda. Because Ramos has yet to file a brief, we dismiss the appeal.

The appellate record in this case was due November 7, 2016. After receiving two extensions, the clerk's record was filed on December 15, 2016. The reporter's record, however, was not filed because Ramos failed to request preparation and make arrangements to pay for the record. See TEX. R. APP. P. 35.3(b)(2), (3). In a letter dated November 7, 2016, we ordered Ramos to do so by November 18, or we would set the deadline for filing her brief with any issues or points raised that did not require a reporter's record being considered and decided. See TEX. R. APP. P. 37.3(c). This deadline lapsed and the reporter notified the court that Ramos had not requested the record or made payment.

Accordingly, we deemed the reporter's record filed as of December 15, 2016, and notified Ramos that her brief was due by January 16, 2017. This court subsequently granted Ramos three extensions of time to file her brief until April 3, 2017. When she failed to file a brief by that date, the court sua sponte granted Ramos an extension of time to file her brief until April 20, and the clerk notified her, by letter, that failure to timely file a brief would subject the appeal to dismissal without further notice. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(a)(1), 42.3(b). Ramos made no response to the court's letter and the brief remains outstanding. Her pro se status does not exempt her from compliance with the rules of appellate procedure. See Pena v. McDowell, 201 S.W.3d 665, 667 (Tex. 2006).

Therefore, this appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution and failure to comply with a notice from the clerk of this court requiring action within a specified time. TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(a)(1); 42.3(b), (c).

Per Curiam


Summaries of

Ramos v. Castaneda

Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo
Apr 28, 2017
No. 07-16-00355-CV (Tex. App. Apr. 28, 2017)
Case details for

Ramos v. Castaneda

Case Details

Full title:MARIA RAMOS, APPELLANT v. ANN MARIE CASTANEDA, APPELLEE

Court:Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

Date published: Apr 28, 2017

Citations

No. 07-16-00355-CV (Tex. App. Apr. 28, 2017)