Court of Civil Appeals of Texas, 2011

Donald W. Crawford v. Jesse L. Davis and Shirley Pearl

Donald W. Crawford v. Jesse L. Davis and Shirley Pearl
Court of Civil Appeals of Texas · Decided January 6, 2011

Donald W. Crawford v. Jesse L. Davis and Shirley Pearl

Opinion

Opinion filed January 6, 2011

 

                                                                       In The

                                                                             

  Eleventh Court of Appeals

                                                                   __________

 

                                                         No. 11-10-00093-CV

                                                    __________

 

                              DONALD W. CRAWFORD, Appellant

 

                                                             V.

 

                  JESSE L. DAVIS AND SHIRLEY PEARL, Appellees

 

                                   On Appeal from the 349th District Court

                                                         Anderson County, Texas

                                                   Trial Court Cause No. 349-6455

 

 

                                            M E M O R A N D U M   O P I N I O N

            Donald W. Crawford sued Jesse L. Davis and Shirley Pearl for providing him sack lunches instead of three meals a day while the George Beto Unit of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice – Institutional Division was in lock down.  Thomas sought a total of $50,000 in damages for his alleged mental suffering and anguish.  The trial court dismissed his claims because he failed to comply with the requirements of Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 14.004 (Vernon 2002) and because his claims were frivolous and without merit.  We affirm.

            On appeal, Crawford contends that dismissal is not proper for failure to comply with Section 14.004 and because the trial court abused its discretion when it did not grant his motion for rehearing.  We disagree.

            The requirements of Section 14.004 are mandatory; therefore, dismissal is an appropriate remedy.  Crawford failed to state any actionable cause of action in his petition.  The trial court did not abuse its discretion.  All of Crawford’s arguments on appeal have been considered, and each is overruled.

            The order of the trial court is affirmed.

 

 

                                                                                    PER CURIAM 

 

January 6, 2011          

Panel consists of:  Wright, C.J.,

McCall, J., and Strange, J.

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