Richard J. Bacon v. Navient Solutions Appeal from County Court at Law No. 5 of Dallas County (memorandum opinion)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Dismissed and Opinion Filed July 2, 2018 S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-17-01397-CV RICHARD J. BACON, Appellant V. NAVIENT SOLUTIONS, Appellee On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 5 Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CC-17-00603-E MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Chief Justice Wright, Justice Evans, and Justice Brown Opinion by Chief Justice Wright Appellant’s brief in this case is overdue.1 By letter dated February 23, 2018, we notified appellant the brief received by the Court on February 6, 2018 was deficient. We noted the numerous ways in which appellant’s brief did not comply with rule 38 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. Because neither the clerk’s record nor the reporter’s record had yet been filed, we also informed appellant that his amended brief complying with rule 38 was not due until thirty days after the record had been filed. To date, appellant has not filed an amended brief, filed an extension motion, nor otherwise corresponded with the Court regarding the status of this appeal. 1 Appellant filed a docketing statement on February 6, 2018, indicating he had not requested a reporter’s record. Therefore, the deadline for filing appellant’s brief was thirty days after the clerk’s record was filed. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal. TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(a)(1); 42.3(b), (c). /Carolyn Wright/ CAROLYN WRIGHT CHIEF JUSTICE 171397F.P05 –2– S Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT RICHARD J. BACON, Appellant No. 05-17-01397-CV On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 5, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CC-17-00603-E. Opinion delivered by Chief Justice Wright. Justices Evans and Brown participating. V. NAVIENT SOLUTIONS, Appellee In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, this appeal is DISMISSED. Judgment entered July 2, 2018 –3–

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.