Mark Blaylock v. Katie Sleph Appeal from Co Civil Ct at Law No 3 of Harris County (memorandum opinion per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Opinion issued January 25, 2024 In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-23-00730-CV ——————————— MARK BLAYLOCK, Appellant V. KATIE SLEPH, Appellee On Appeal from the County Civil Court at Law No. 3 Harris County, Texas Trial Court Case No. 1202809 MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant, Mark Blaylock, appeals from a final judgment signed on July 3, 2023. Appellant has not paid for the clerk’s record or the required filing fee and has not established indigence for purposes of appellate costs. See TEX. R. APP. P. 5, 20.1 (indigence), 37.3(b) (allowing dismissal of appeal if no clerk’s record filed due to appellant’s fault); see also TEX. GOV’T CODE §§ 51.207, 51.208, 51.941(a), 101.041; Order Regarding Fees Charged in the Supreme Court, in Civil Cases in the Courts of Appeals, and Before the Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation, Misc. Docket No. 15-9158 (Tex. Aug. 28, 2015). The Court issued a notice on November 2, 2023 that the appeal might be subject to dismissal unless the filing fee was paid by December 4, 2023. The fee was not paid and no response was received. On November 7, 2023, the Court issued a notice advising appellant that unless appellant filed a response by December 7, 2023, establishing that he had paid for the clerk’s record or that he was indigent and exempt from paying for the clerk’s record, the appeal might be dismissed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 5 (allowing enforcement of rule), 37.3(b) (allowing dismissal of appeal if no clerk’s record filed due to appellant’s fault), 42.3(c) (allowing involuntary dismissal of case). No response was received. We dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(c), 43.2(f). We dismiss all pending motions as moot. PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Kelly, Hightower, and Guerra. 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
