Court of Civil Appeals of Texas, 2005

McKinley Darden, Jr. v. Aluminum Company of America

McKinley Darden, Jr. v. Aluminum Company of America
Court of Civil Appeals of Texas · Decided April 7, 2005

McKinley Darden, Jr. v. Aluminum Company of America

Opinion







NUMBER 13-04-508-CV


COURT OF APPEALS


THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS


CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

___________________________________________________________________


McKINLEY DARDEN, JR., ET AL.,                                     Appellants,


v.


ALUMINUM COMPANY OF AMERICA, ET AL.,                     Appellees.

___________________________________________________________________


On appeal from the 117th District Court

of Nueces County, Texas.

___________________________________________________________________


MEMORANDUM OPINION


Before Justices Hinojosa, Yañez, and Garza

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam


         Appellants, McKINLEY DARDEN, JR., ET AL., perfected an appeal from a judgment entered by the 117th District Court of Nueces County, Texas, in cause number 02-04150-B. No clerk’s record has been filed due to appellants’ failure to pay or make arrangements to pay the clerk’s fee for preparing the clerk’s record.

         If the trial court clerk fails to file the clerk’s record because the appellant failed to pay or make arrangements to pay the clerk’s fee for preparing the clerk’s record, the appellate court may dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution unless the appellant was entitled to proceed without payment of costs. Tex. R. App. P. 37.3(b).

         On December 21, 2004, notice was given to all parties that this appeal was subject to dismissal pursuant to Tex. R. App. P. 37.3(b). Appellants were given ten days to explain why the cause should not be dismissed. To date, no response has been received from appellants.

         The Court, having examined and fully considered the documents on file, appellants’ failure to pay or make arrangements to pay the clerk’s fee for preparing the clerk’s record, this Court’s notice, and appellants’ failure to respond, is of the opinion that the appeal should be dismissed for want of prosecution. The appeal is hereby DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION.

                                                               PER CURIAM


Memorandum Opinion delivered and filed

this the 7th day of April, 2005.


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