Court of Civil Appeals of Texas, 1996

Rashaad H. Al-Muhammad, AKA Robert L. Helm v. Richard Harvey

Rashaad H. Al-Muhammad, AKA Robert L. Helm v. Richard Harvey
Court of Civil Appeals of Texas · Decided December 31, 1996

Rashaad H. Al-Muhammad, AKA Robert L. Helm v. Richard Harvey

Opinion

Al-Muhammad v. Harvey






IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS


No. 10-96-235-CV


     RASHAAD H. AL-MUHAMMAD,

     AKA ROBERT L. HELM,

                                                                                              Appellant

     v.


     RICHARD HARVEY,

                                                                                              Appellee


From the 52nd District Court

Coryell County, Texas

Trial Court # 28,181

                                                                                                    


MEMORANDUM OPINION

                                                                                                    


      Rashaad Al-Muhammad, an inmate, appealed from the court's dismissal of his in forma pauperis petition. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 13.001 (Vernon Supp. 1997). Al-Muhammad filed a notice of appeal on October 14, 1996, and the transcript was filed in this court on October 23. Although his brief was due on November 22, no appellant's brief has been filed. Tex. R. App. P. 74(k). Appellate Rule 74(l)(1) provides:

Civil Cases. In civil cases, when the appellant has failed to file his brief in the time prescribed, the appellate court may dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution, unless reasonable explanation is shown for such failure and that appellee has not suffered material injury thereby. The court may, however, decline to dismiss the appeal, whereupon it shall give such direction to the cause as it may deem proper.

Id. 74(l)(1).

      More than twenty days have passed since Al-Muhammad's brief was due. We notified him of this defect by letter on November 27. Id. 60(a)(2), 83. He has not responded to our letter showing grounds for continuing the appeal, nor has he provided a reasonable explanation for failing to file a brief. Id. 60(a)(2), 74(l)(1). Therefore, this appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution. Id. 74(l)(1).

                                                                               PER CURIAM


Before   Chief Justice Davis,

            Justice Cummings, and

            Justice Vance 

Dismissed for want of prosecution

Opinion delivered and filed December 31, 1996

Do not publish

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.