Martin R. Rodriguez v. Joe Jackson, Constance Henson and Paul Eaglin
Martin R. Rodriguez v. Joe Jackson, Constance Henson and Paul Eaglin
Opinion
On May 18, 2006, we notified the parties that the appeal would be dismissed for want of prosecution unless arrangements were made for filing the record or the appellant explained why he needed time for filing the record. Appellant did not respond. The appellant is not entitled to proceed without payment of costs. Tex. R. App. P. 20.1. There being no satisfactory explanation for the failure to file the record, the appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution. Tex. R. App. P. 37.3(b). Costs are assessed against appellant.
APPEAL DISMISSED.
____________________________
STEVE McKEITHEN
Chief Justice
Opinion Delivered July 27, 2006
Before McKeithen, C.J., Gaultney and Horton, JJ.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.