Holly Dawn Ruthven v. Dickinson I.S.D., et al Appeal from 10th District Court of Galveston County (opinion)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Opinion issued December 15, 2020 In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-20-00416-CV ——————————— HOLLY D. RUTHVEN, Appellant V. DICKINSON INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, GALVESTON COUNTY, COLLEGE OF THE MAINLAND, BACLIFF MUD, AND GALVESTON COUNTY ROAD AND FLOOD, Appellees On Appeal from the 10th District Court Galveston County, Texas Trial Court Case No. 15-TX-0330 MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant, Holly D. Ruthven, has failed to timely file a brief. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.6(a) (governing time to file brief). Appellant filed her notice of appeal on May 18, 2020. The clerk’s record was filed with the Court on June 17, 2020, and no reporter’s record was taken. As a result, appellant’s brief was due on July 17, 2020. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.6. However, no brief was filed. On July 21, 2020, appellant was notified by the Court that her appeal was subject to dismissal if she did not file her brief or a motion to extend time to file a brief within ten days. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(a) (governing failure of appellant to file brief), 42.3(b) (allowing involuntary dismissal of appeal for want of prosecution), 42.3(c) (allowing involuntary dismissal of case for failure to comply with order of this Court). On August 5, 2020, appellant filed a motion to extend time to file her brief, which was granted by the Court, extending the deadline to September 30, 2020. Appellant failed to timely file her brief by the extended deadline. On October 5, 2020, appellant was again notified by the Court that her appeal was subject to dismissal if she did not file her brief or a motion to extend time to file a brief within ten days. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(a), 42.3(b), 42.3(c). Despite the Court’s latest notice that this appeal was subject to dismissal, after more than two months, appellant has not adequately responded. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(b), (c), 43.2(f). All pending motions are dismissed as moot. PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Goodman, Landau, and Adams. 2
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.
