Gerald Roe and Mary Thedford Roe v. Capstone Realty, LLC and The Shuttlesworth Corporation--Appeal from 241st District Court of Smith County

Annotate this Case
DISMISSAL FORM FOR CIVIL CASES ON ANT'S MOTION /SETTLEMENT /**/

NO. 12-05-00132-CV

NO. 12-05-00133-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

 

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

 

TYLER, TEXAS

 

GERALD ROE AND

MARY THEDFORD ROE, APPEALS FROM THE 241ST

APPELLANTS

 

V. JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF

 

CAPSTONE REALTY, LLC AND

THE SHUTTLESWORTH CORPORATION, SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS

APPELLEES

 

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

These appeals are being dismissed for failure to comply with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3. Pursuant to Rule 32.1, Appellants docketing statement was due to have been filed at the time the appeal was perfected, i.e., April 18, 2005. See Tex. R. App. P. 32.1. On April 18, 2005, this Court notified Appellants that they should file a docketing statement immediately if they had not already done so. However, Appellants failed to file a docketing statement.

On May 6, 2005, this Court issued a second notice advising Appellants that the docketing statement was past due. The notice also advised Appellants that the filing fee was due to have been paid on or before April 28, 2005, but had not been received. See Tex. R. App. P. 5 (requiring payment of filing fee at time an item is presented for filing). The notice further provided that unless the docketing statement and filing fee were filed on or before May 16, 2005, the appeal would be presented for dismissal in accordance with Rule 42.3. The deadline for filing the docketing statement and paying the filing fee has passed, and Appellants have not complied with the Court s

request. Because Appellants have failed, after notice, to comply with Rule 5 and Rule 32.1, the appeals are dismissed. Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(c).

Opinion delivered May 18, 2005.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and DeVasto, J.

 

(PUBLISH)

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.