In The Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont __________________ NO. 09-24-00360-CV __________________ DAVID L. GLASSEL, Appellant V. DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, AS TRUSTEE, IN TRUST FOR REGISTERED HOLDERS OF LONG BEACH MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST 2006-7, ASSET-BACKED CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2006-7, Appellee __________________________________________________________________ On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 6 Montgomery County, Texas Trial Cause No. 24-34143-CV __________________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION In a forcible detainer suit, the trial court granted a judgment for possession in favor of the plaintiff, Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as Trustee, in trust for registered Holders of Long Beach Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-7, Asset-Backed Certificates, Series 2006-7 (“Deutsche Bank”). David L. Glassel filed a notice of appeal.

On October 23, 2024, the appellate court clerk notified Glassel that his brief had been received but not filed because the brief did not comply with Rule 38.1 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, and it lacked the required certificate of service.

See Tex. R. App. P. 9.5(e); 38.1.

On February 12, 2025, the clerk again notified Glassel that on October 23, 2024, his brief had been received but not filed due to defects in the brief, and gave Glassel until March 14, 2025, to file a compliant amended brief. See id. 38.9(a).

Glassel did not file an amended brief.

On April 7, 2025, the appellate court clerk notified the parties that the brief of the appellant was past due and had not been filed. The clerk advised the parties that unless Glassel filed an amended brief by April 17, 2025, the appeal would be submitted without briefs and warned that submission without briefs may result in dismissal of the appeal for want of prosecution. See id. 38.8(a); 39.8. Glassel did not respond to the clerk’s notice.

On May 5, 2025, the Clerk notified the parties that the appeal would be submitted on the record alone on May 27, 2025. See id. On May 6, 2025, Deutsche Bank filed a motion to dismiss the appeal. Glassel did not file a response to Deutsche Bank’s motion to dismiss the appeal.

Glassel failed to comply with notices from the clerk requiring a response within a specified time. See id. 42.3(c). Glassel failed to prosecute his appeal. Id. 42.3(b). We grant Deutsche Bank’s motion to dismiss the appeal and we dismiss the appeal. See id. 43.2(f).

APPEAL DISMISSED.

PER CURIAM

Submitted on May 27, 2025 Opinion Delivered May 29, 2025 Before Golemon, C.J., Johnson and Chambers, JJ.