Summary
dismissing appeal because, even if appellant intended his notice of appeal to serve as his brief, the notice did not comply with the briefing requirements
Summary of this case from Craaybeek v. CraaybeekOpinion
No. 02-19-00449-CV
07-02-2020
GREGORY JOSEPH FINSTER, Appellant v. JACQUELINE LENORE FINSTER, Appellee
On Appeal from the 324th District Court Tarrant County, Texas
Trial Court No. 324-671809-19 Before Sudderth, C.J.; Gabriel and Kerr, JJ.
Memorandum Opinion
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT
On March 30, 2020, we notified appellant that his brief had not been filed and that his appeal could be dismissed for want of prosecution unless he filed a brief and motion explaining the need for an extension by April 9. See Tex. R. App. P. 10.5(b), 38.8(a)(1).
On April 28, 2020, we informed appellant that if he intended for his December 2, 2019 "Notice of Appeal" to serve as his brief, it did not conform to the briefing rules under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.1, with our Local Rule 1.A, or with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.4(i). We notified him that we could dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution unless he filed an amended brief that complied with the above rules, and we gave him until May 12, 2020, to file the amended brief and an accompanying motion to explain the need for an extension. See Tex. R. App. P. 9, 10.5(b), 38.1, 38.8, 38.9(a), 42.3.
We have received no response.
Because appellant has failed to file a brief even after we afforded him an opportunity to explain his initial failure to do so, we dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a)(1), 42.3(b), 43.2(f).
Per Curiam Delivered: July 2, 2020