MAGDALENO CRUZ, SR., ET AL. v. RUBEN G. MOHME, M.D.--Appeal from 139th District Court of Hidalgo County

Annotate this Case
NUMBER13-07-201-CV
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

_______________________________________________________________ _

 

MAGDALENO CRUZ, SR., ET AL., Appellants,

 
v.

RUBEN G. MOHME, M.D., Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

On appeal from the 139th District Court
of Hidalgo County, Texas.

_________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Rodriguez, Garza, and Vela
Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

Appellants, MAGDALENO CRUZ, SR., ET AL., perfected an appeal from a judgment entered by the 139th District Court of Hidalgo County, Texas, in cause number C-337-06-C(1). The clerk's record was filed on April 25, 2007. No reporter's record was filed. Appellants' brief was due on May 29, 2007. 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 August 24, 2007, 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 27th day of September, 2007.

 

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.