NUMBER 13-24-00160-CV COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

IN THE MATTER OF THE MARRIAGE OF CHERYL FLYNN AND CASEY FLYNN AND IN THE INTEREST OF C.F. AND C.F., CHILDREN

ON APPEAL FROM THE 94TH DISTRICT COURT OF NUECES COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Chief Justice Tijerina and Justices West and Fonseca Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Tijerina This matter is before the Court on its own motion. On March 25, 2024, appellant Casey Flynn filed a notice of appeal from a final decree of divorce. The clerk’s record was filed on April 23, 2024, and the reporter’s record was filed on June 11, 2024, thus appellant’s brief in this matter was originally due on July 11, 2024. Since that time, appellant has requested and received five extensions of time to file his brief. In granting appellant’s fifth motion for extension of time, the Court allowed appellant an extension of time until November 12, 2024, to file his brief, but advised him that “NO FURTHER EXTENSIONS SHALL BE GRANTED ABSENT NEW AND EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES.” See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(a), 42.3(b). To date, appellant has not filed any response to the Court’s directive. Appellant has failed to either reasonably explain his failure to file a brief, file a motion for extension of time to file his brief, or file the brief.

The Court, having examined and fully considered the documents on file and appellant’s failure to file the brief, is of the opinion that this appeal should be dismissed for want of prosecution. See id. R. 38.8(a) (authorizing the court to “dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution” if appellant fails to timely file a brief “unless the appellant reasonably explains the failure and the appellee is not significantly injured by the appellant’s failure to timely file a brief”), R. 42.3(b), (c) (authorizing the court to dismiss an appeal “for want of prosecution” or “because the appellant has failed to comply with a requirement of [the appellate rules], a court order, or a notice from the clerk requiring a response or other action within a specified time”); Smith v. DC Civil Constr., LLC, 521 S.W.3d 75, 76 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2017, no pet.) (“If an appellant fails to timely file a brief, the appellate court may dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution.”). Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for want of prosecution. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(b), (c).

JAIME TIJERINA Chief Justice Delivered and filed on the 20th day of February, 2025.