In the Matter of the Marriage of Melvin Wayne Sellers and Shannon Joyce Keating and in the Interest of Patsy M. Sellers, a child--Appeal from County Court at Law No. 2 of Henderson County
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NO. 07-04-0397-CV
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AT AMARILLO
PANEL D
FEBRUARY 11, 2005
______________________________
IN THE MATTER OF THE MARRIAGE OF
MELVIN WAYNE SELLERS AND SHANNON JOYCE KEATING
AND IN THE INTEREST OF PATSY M. SELLERS, A CHILD
_________________________________
FROM THE 3RD DISTRICT COURT OF HENDERSON COUNTY;
NO. 04-056; HONORABLE JIM PARSONS, JUDGE
_______________________________
Before QUINN and REAVIS and CAMPBELL, JJ.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant Melvin Wayne Sellers perfected this appeal challenging the trial court’s
order (1) dismissing with prejudice his petition for divorce from Shannon Joyce Keating for
insufficient evidence of a common law marriage, (2) dividing the property, and (3)
terminating the parent-child relationship between him and Patsy M. Sellers pursuant to his
voluntary affidavit of relinquishment. The clerk’s record and reporter’s record have been
filed.
On December 22, 2004, Vera C. Bennett, counsel for Shannon, was permitted to
withdraw as attorney of record, and by order dated January 10, 2005, Samuel M. George,
counsel for Melvin, was also permitted to withdraw. This Court notified Melvin by letter that
his brief was due November 19, 2004, but had yet to be filed. Melvin was directed to file
a response reasonably explaining the failure with a showing that Shannon had not been
significantly injured by the delay by January 28, 2005, noting that failure to do so might
result in dismissal of the appeal per Rule 38.8(a) of the Texas Rules of Appellate
Procedure. Melvin did not respond and the brief remains outstanding.
Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution and failure to comply with
a directive of this Court. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a)(1) and 42.3(b) & (c).
Don H. Reavis
Justice
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.
