MCKINLEY DARDEN, JR., ET AL. v. ALUMINUM COMPANY OF AMERICA, ET AL.--Appeal from 117th District Court of Nueces County

NUMBER 13-04-508-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

__________________________________________________________________

McKINLEY DARDEN, JR., ET AL., Appellants,

v.

ALUMINUM COMPANY OF AMERICA, ET AL., Appellees.

__________________________________________________________________

On appeal from the 117th District Court

of Nueces County, Texas.

__________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Hinojosa, Ya ez, and Garza

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

Appellants, McKINLEY DARDEN, JR., ET AL., perfected an appeal from a judgment entered by the 117th District Court of Nueces County, Texas, in cause number 04-3822-B. The clerk=s record was filed on October 25, 2005. No reporter=s record was filed. Appellants= brief was due on November 28, 2005. To date, no appellate brief has been received.

When the appellant has failed to file a brief in the time prescribed, the Court may dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution, unless the appellant reasonably explains the failure and the appellee is not significantly injured by the appellant=s failure to timely file a brief. Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a)(1).

On January 13, 2006, notice was given to all parties that this appeal was subject to dismissal pursuant to Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a)(1). Appellants were given ten days to explain why the cause should not be dismissed for failure to file a brief. To date, no response has been received.

The Court, having examined and fully considered the documents on file, appellants= failure to file a proper appellate brief, this Court=s notice, and appellants= failure to respond, is of the opinion that the appeal should be dismissed for want of prosecution. The appeal is hereby DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION.

PER CURIAM

Memorandum Opinion delivered and filed

this the 2nd day of March, 2006