the July 7th order, this Court directed that legal counsel be engaged to represent the interests of Dale Sue Jones and that a notice of representation be filed in this Court on or before September 3, 2010, noting that failure to comply would result in dismissal.  This Court also ordered that Dale Sue Jones's brief on the merits be filed on or before October 4, 2010, again noting that failure to comply would result in dismissal.

            On October 7, 2010, Stanley Ray Jones filed "Appellant's Application for Extension of Time to Obtain Counsel."  By the motion, Mr. Jones represents that he requires an extension to employ counsel to represent the interests of Dale Sue Jones.[1]  First, we note, that Mr. Jones, by filing a motion for extension of time to employ counsel on behalf of Dale Sue Jones, is attempting to represent the Estate of Dale Sue Jones.  This he cannot do.  Consequently, we take no action on that motion.  However, even if we were to consider the merits of that motion, we would deny the relief requested because not only has the Estate of Dale Sue Jones been afforded an adequate opportunity to retain counsel and failed to do so, the motion itself lacks substantive merit.

            As both deadlines which were set by the July 7th order have lapsed, we dismiss that portion of the appeal as it pertains to the claims of Dale Sue Jones. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3 (b) and (c).  Only the issues raised by Stanley Ray Jones in his pro se brief will be considered following submission of this appeal. 

Appellee, New Reflections, filed its brief in response to Stanley Ray Jones's brief on September 14, 2010.  Per the July 7th order, Dr. Ted Scott's Appellee's Brief in response to the issues raised by Stanley Ray Jones is due on or before November 3, 2010.

It is so ordered.

                                                                        Per Curiam