Bobby Michael Dennis v. Nurse D. Cox et al.--Appeal from 52nd District Court of Coryell County

IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-94-315-CV

BOBBY MICHAEL DENNIS,

Appellant

v.

NURSE D. COX, ET AL.,

Appellees

From the 52nd District Court

Coryell County, Texas

Trial Court # 28,754

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Bobby Dennis appealed from the court's dismissal of his in forma pauperis petition. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. 13.001 (Vernon Supp. 1994). Dennis filed his notice of appeal on October 7, 1994, and the transcript was filed in this court on October 17. Although his brief was due on November 17, no appellant's brief has been filed. See Tex. R. App. P. 74(k). Appellate Rule 74(l)(1) provides:

Civil Cases. In civil cases, when the appellant has failed to file his brief in the time prescribed, the appellate court may dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution, unless reasonable explanation is shown for such failure and that appellee has not suffered material injury thereby. The court may, however, decline to dismiss the appeal, whereupon it shall give such direction to the cause as it may deem proper.

Id. 74(l)(1).

On December 21 we notified him that we would dismiss his appeal for want of prosecution unless he responded showing cause for continuing his appeal. See id. 74(l)(1), 83. He responded, claiming that his research was inhibited by a policy instituted by TDCJ-ID and that he was in the process of retaining an attorney to represent him. Because we concluded that the stated reasons constituted grounds for continuing the appeal, we granted Dennis an extension of time in which to prosecute this appeal. We gave him until February 2, 1995, to either file a brief or retain an attorney. We warned him that if he had not provided us with a signed acceptance of employment by an attorney or a brief on the merits by that date, the appeal would be dismissed.

His time for continuing with the appeal has expired. He has not filed a brief or a signed acceptance of employment by an attorney. Therefore, we dismiss his appeal for want of prosecution. See id. 74(l)(1).

PER CURIAM

Before Chief Justice Thomas,

Justice Cummings, and

Justice Vance

Dismissed for want of prosecution

Opinion delivered and filed February 8, 1995

Do not publish