Geoffrey Scott Curtin v. Laureen Ellen Poindexter and Luke Casillas, LLC d/b/a Dents & Dings Appeal from 150th Judicial District Court of Bexar County (memorandum opinion per curiam)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas MEMORANDUM OPINION No. 04-17-00123-CV Geoffrey Scott CURTIN, Appellant v. Laureen Ellen POINDEXTER and Luke Casillas, LLC d/b/a Dents & Dings, Appellees From the 150th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2015CI00537 Honorable Renée Yanta, Judge Presiding PER CURIAM Sitting: Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice Irene Rios, Justice Delivered and Filed: May 24, 2017 DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION Appellant Geoffrey Scott Curtin filed a notice of appeal in this court on March 7, 2017. Appellant was required to pay $205.00 and $10.00 in filing fees to this court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 5. 1 Appellant did not timely pay the required fees. Accordingly, when the fees remained unpaid, on April 25, 2017, this court ordered Appellant to provide written proof to this court not 1 See also TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 51.207(b)(1) (filing fee $100.00) (West Supp. 2015); id. §§ 51.0051, .208 (additional fee $50.00); id. § 51.851(b) (electronic filing fee $20.00); id. § 51.941(a) (services for indigents fee $25.00); Texas Supreme Court Order Regarding Fees Charged in Civil Cases in the Supreme Court and the Courts of Appeals and Before the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, Misc. Docket No. 07–9138 (Tex. Aug. 28, 2007), reprinted in TEX. R. APP. P. app. A § B.l.(a). 04-17-00123-CV later than May 5, 2017, that the filing fees have been paid or Appellant is entitled to appeal without paying the filing fees. See id. We warned Appellant that if he failed to respond as ordered, the appeal would be dismissed without further notice. See id. R. 5, 42.3; In re W.J.C., No. 04-0500532-CV, 2005 WL 3477883, at *1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Dec. 21, 2005, no pet.) (mem. op.). To date, Appellant has not paid the fees or filed any response with this court. Therefore, we dismiss this appeal for want of prosecution. See TEX. R. APP. P. 37.3(b), 42.3(b), (c). PER CURIAM -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.