Michael Joseph Kearns v. Gonzales County, et al.--Appeal from 25th District Court of Gonzales County

Annotate this Case
NUMBER 13-07-00455-CV
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

______________________________________________________________________

MICHAEL JOSEPH KEARNS, Appellant,

 
v.

GONZALES COUNTY, ET AL., Appellees.

__________ ____________________________________________________________

 
On Appeal from the 25th District Court of Gonzales County, Texas.

______________________________________________________________________

 
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Ya ez, Garza, and Benavides

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam This matter is before the Court on the appellant's failure to file a brief or reasonably explain his failure to do so. The appellant's brief in the above cause was due on October 17, 2007. On October 24, 2007, the Clerk of the Court notified appellant that the brief had not been timely filed and that the appeal was subject to dismissal for want of prosecution under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.8(a)(1), unless within ten days from the date of receipt of this letter, appellant reasonably explained the failure and the appellee was not significantly injured by the appellant's failure to timely file a brief.

Appellant responded to this Court's directive on November 2, 2007. Appellant contends that he is a "natural private individual who operates on his God given birthrights," and that dismissing this appeal "would be construed as abridging or modifying my substantive rights, therefore I would demand this matter be continued until I file the Appellate Brief."

Appellant has failed to either reasonably explain his failure to file a brief, file a motion for extension of time to file his brief, or file his brief. Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a), 42.3(b).

PER CURIAM

 

Memorandum Opinion delivered and

filed this the 20th day of November, 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.