Summary
denying eighth extension motion after abating appeal for approximately sixty days due to pandemic
Summary of this case from Rachal v. Deutsche BankOpinion
No. 11-19-00213-CV
08-13-2020
MELISSA REYNA ROGERS, Appellant v. RANCEFER JAMES ROGERS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 446th District Court Ector County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. C-137,562
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant has filed in this court an eighth motion for extension of time to file her appellate brief in this cause; it is her fifth pro se motion for extension. Appellant's brief was originally due to be filed on or before September 5, 2019.
In previous correspondence, we informed Appellant that further motions for extension would not be accepted. Later, in April 2020, when we granted the sixth motion for continuance, we abated the appeal to allow Appellant extra time due to the COVID-19 pandemic. We set a deadline of July 8, 2020, for the brief. Since then, Appellant has filed two more motions for extension. We reluctantly granted the seventh motion on July 16, 2020, and informed Appellant that that was "the absolute last Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief" that this court would consider. Appellant nonetheless filed an eighth motion for extension. We deny that motion.
Based upon Appellant's failure to prosecute this appeal in a timely manner, we conclude that this appeal should be dismissed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(a)(1), 42.3(b).
Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for want of prosecution.
PER CURIAM August 13, 2020 Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.,
Stretcher, J., and Wright, S.C.J. Willson, J., not participating.
Jim R. Wright, Senior Chief Justice (Retired), Court of Appeals, 11th District of Texas at Eastland, sitting by assignment.