Opinion
NO. 02-12-00243-CV
01-24-2013
Habib Surani v. Trinity River Vision Authority
From the 153rd District Court
of Tarrant County (153-256860-11)
January 24, 2013
Per Curiam
JUDGMENT
This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that the appeal should be dismissed. It is ordered that the appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution.
It is further ordered that appellant Habib Surani shall pay all of the costs of this appeal, for which let execution issue.
SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
PER CURIAM
NO. 02-12-00243-CV
HABIB SURANI APPELLANT
V.
TRINITY RIVER VISION AUTHORITY APPELLEE
FROM THE 153RD DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY
MEMORANDUM OPINION
See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
Pro se appellant Habib Surani appeals from the trial court's order granting the plea to the jurisdiction filed by appellee Trinity River Vision Authority. We originally set the due date for appellant's brief at October 17, 2012. Appellant did not file a brief by that date, so on October 29, 2012, we notified him that we could dismiss his appeal for want of prosecution unless, by November 8, 2012, he filed a motion reasonably explaining the failure to file a brief and the need for an extension. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a)(1). On November 6, 2012, we received a document that we construed as appellant's brief, but three days later, we sent appellant a letter explaining that the document did not comply with any briefing requirement under rule of appellate procedure 38.1.See Tex. R. App. P. 38.1. We informed appellant that if he did not file an amended brief that complied with rule 38.1 by November 19, 2012, we could dismiss his appeal.
For example, the brief contained no legal authorities, no issues, no legal arguments, and no appendix. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.1(c), (f), (i), (k).
--------
On November 15, 2012, we received a letter from appellant, but we have not received an amended brief. Accordingly, we strike appellant's brief and dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a)(1), 38.9(a), 42.3(b), (c); Johnson v. Dall. Hous. Auth., 179 S.W.3d 770, 770 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2005, no pet.); see also Yeldell v. Denton Cent. Appraisal Dist., No. 02-07-00313-CV, 2008 WL 4053014, at *2 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Aug. 29, 2008, pet. denied) (mem. op.) (explaining that all parties appearing in Texas appellate courts must follow the rules of appellate procedure).
PER CURIAM
PANEL: LIVINGSTON, C.J.; DAUPHINOT and GARDNER, JJ.