Opinion issued April 29, 2025

In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-23-00723-CV ——————————— TIFFANY HAIRE, Appellant V. NEW HAVEN ASSISTED LIVING OF TOMBALL LLC, ENRICHED SENIOR LIVING LLC, JUSTIN YARMARK, TESSA WILSON, HOLLI HASSERODT, HOUSTON METHODIST WILLOWBROOK HOSPITAL, SANFORD DALE HAIRE, SHANNON DAYLE HUGHES, AND TRAVIS KEITH HUGHES, Appellees

On Appeal from the 129th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Case No. 2023-02953

MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant, Tiffany Haire, proceeding pro se, filed a notice of appeal from the trial court’s September 11, 2023 final judgment. Appellees, New Haven Assisted Living of Tomball LLC, Enriched Senior Living LLC, Justin Yarmark, Tessa Wilson, Holli Hasserodt, Houston Methodist Willowbrook Hospital, Sanford Dale Haire, Shannon Dayle Hughes, and Travis Keith Hughes, filed a motion to dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution because appellant has failed to timely file a brief.

We grant appellees’ motion and dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution.

The Court’s records reflect that the appellate record was completed on January 11, 2024, making appellant’s brief originally due on or before February 12, 2024.

See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.6(a), (d). However, no brief was filed.

On March 13, 2024, appellant was notified by the Clerk of this Court that the appeal was subject to dismissal unless a brief, or motion to extend time to file a brief, was filed within ten days of the notice. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(a) (governing failure of appellant to file brief), 42.3(b) (allowing involuntary dismissal of appeal for want of prosecution), 42.3(c) (allowing involuntary dismissal of case for failure to comply with order of this Court). On March 26, 2024, appellant filed her first motion to extend the deadline to file her brief, which was granted by the Court. With the extension, appellant’s brief was due on or before April 12, 2024.

After appellant failed to file her brief by the extended deadline, she was again notified, on April 22, 2024, that the deadline for filing her brief had passed, and the appeal was subject to dismissal. Appellant failed to adequately respond to the Court’s notice and has not filed a brief.

On April 3, 2025, appellees filed their motion to dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. Despite the Court’s notice that this appeal was subject to dismissal, and appellees’ motion requesting dismissal of the appeal, appellant has not adequately responded. See TEX. R. APP. P. 10.3(a).

Accordingly, we grant appellees’ motion and dismiss this appeal for want of prosecution. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(b), (c), 43.2(f). All pending motions are dismissed as moot.

PER CURIAM Panel consists of Chief Justice Adams and Justices Gunn and Guiney.