Court of Civil Appeals of Texas, 2006

Kenneth Murray Locke v. Texas Department of Family and Protective Services

Kenneth Murray Locke v. Texas Department of Family and Protective Services
Court of Civil Appeals of Texas · Decided September 14, 2006

Kenneth Murray Locke v. Texas Department of Family and Protective Services

Opinion











NUMBER 13-06-322-CV



COURT OF APPEALS



THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS



CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________



KENNETH MURRAY LOCKE, Appellant,



v.



TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY AND

PROTECTIVE SERVICES, Appellee.

____________________________________________________________



On appeal from the 119th District Court

of Tom Green County, Texas.

______________________________________________________________



MEMORANDUM OPINION



Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Yañez and Garza

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam



Appellant, KENNETH MURRAY LOCKE, perfected an appeal from a judgment entered by the 119th District Court of Tom Green County, Texas, in cause number B-04-120-CPS. No clerk's record has been filed due to appellant's 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 August 7, 2006, notice was given to all parties that this appeal was subject to dismissal pursuant to Tex. R. App. P. 37.3(b). Appellant was given ten days to explain why the cause should not be dismissed. To date, no response has been received from appellant.

The Court, having examined and fully considered the documents on file, appellant's failure to pay or make arrangements to pay the clerk's fee for preparing the clerk's record, this Court's notice, and appellant's 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 14th day of September, 2006.





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