From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Thomas v. Daniel

COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH
May 24, 2012
NO. 02-12-00038-CV (Tex. App. May. 24, 2012)

Summary

dismissing Thomas's appeal for want of prosecution

Summary of this case from Thomas v. Daniel

Opinion

NO. 02-12-00038-CV

05-24-2012

FABIAN THOMAS APPELLANT v. DENISE DANIEL APPELLEE


FROM THE 431ST DISTRICT COURT OF DENTON COUNTY


MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT

See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.

On April 9, 2012, we notified appellant that the trial court clerk responsible for preparing the record in this appeal informed the court that payment arrangements had not been made to pay for the clerk's record as required by Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 35.3(a)(2). See Tex. R. App. P. 35.3(a)(2). We stated that we would dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution unless appellant, within fifteen days, made arrangements to pay for the clerk's record and provided this court with proof of payment.

Because appellant has not made payment arrangements for the clerk's record, it is the opinion of the court that the appeal should be dismissed for want of prosecution. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 37.3(b), 42.3(b).

Appellant shall pay all costs of the appeal, for which let execution issue.

PER CURIAM

PANEL: DAUPHINOT, GARDNER, and WALKER, JJ.


Summaries of

Thomas v. Daniel

COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH
May 24, 2012
NO. 02-12-00038-CV (Tex. App. May. 24, 2012)

dismissing Thomas's appeal for want of prosecution

Summary of this case from Thomas v. Daniel
Case details for

Thomas v. Daniel

Case Details

Full title:FABIAN THOMAS APPELLANT v. DENISE DANIEL APPELLEE

Court:COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH

Date published: May 24, 2012

Citations

NO. 02-12-00038-CV (Tex. App. May. 24, 2012)

Citing Cases

Thomas v. Daniel

(mem. op.) (rejecting Thomas's arguments concerning attorney's fees and the use of unsworn testimony); Thomas…