Court of Civil Appeals of Texas, 2008

in the Matter of the Marriage of Anna G. Schakosky and Rodney James Schakosky and in the Interest of N.V.S., a Child

in the Matter of the Marriage of Anna G. Schakosky and Rodney James Schakosky and in the Interest of N.V.S., a Child
Court of Civil Appeals of Texas · Decided January 2, 2008

in the Matter of the Marriage of Anna G. Schakosky and Rodney James Schakosky and in the Interest of N.V.S., a Child

Opinion

 

IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

 

No. 10-07-00254-CV

 

In the Matter of the Marriage of

Anna G. Schakosky

and

Rodney James Schakosky

and

in the Interest of N.V.S., a Child

 

 


From the 413th District Court

Johnson County, Texas

Trial Court No. D200705048

 

MEMORANDUM  Opinion


 

            Rodney James Schakosky filed a notice of appeal of the trial court’s judgment rendered against him.  He now files a motion to dismiss his appeal.

            He notes on his motion, and in the cover letter, that the Appellee, Anna Schakosky, has been copied with the motion.  The Rules of Appellate Procedure require that each document presented for filing must contain a proof of service and that proof may be made in the form of an acknowledgment or a certification.  Tex. R. App. P. 9.5(a) and (d).  Rodney’s notation does not satisfy the requirements of an acknowledgment or a certification.  However, because Rodney wishes to dismiss his appeal and has indicated that he has sent a copy of the motion to Anna, we use Rule 2 to suspend the requirement of Rule 9.5(d). 

            This appeal is dismissed.  Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a)(1).

 

                                                                                    TOM GRAY

                                                                                    Chief Justice

 

Before Chief Justice Gray,

            Justice Vance, and

            Justice Reyna

Appeal dismissed

Opinion delivered and filed January 2, 2008

[CV06]

ee is not significantly injured by the appellant’s failure to timely file a brief.


Id. 38.8(a)(1).

      More than thirty days have passed since Galer’s brief was due. We notified him of this defect by letter dated November 6, 2002. Id. 42.3, 44.3. He has not responded to our letter. Id. 42.3, 38.8(a)(1). Therefore, this appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution. Id. 38.8(a)(1).


                                                                         PER CURIAM


Before Chief Justice Davis,

      Justice Vance, and

      Justice Gray

Dismissed for want of prosecution

Opinion delivered and filed November 27, 2002

Do not publish

[CV06]

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