Gladys Williams v. Metroplitan Transit Authority and Driver of Metro bus No. 4307/29 Hirsch--Appeal from 61st District Court of Harris County

Annotate this Case
Dismissed and Opinion filed November 6, 2003

Dismissed and Opinion filed November 6, 2003.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-03-00488-CV

____________

GLADYS WILLIAMS, Appellant

V.

METROPOLITAN TRANSIT AUTHORITY and DRIVER OF METRO BUS NO. 4307/29 HIRSCH, Appellees

On Appeal from the 61st District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 02-03132

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

This is an appeal from a judgment signed January 24, 2003. No clerk=s record has been filed. The clerk responsible for preparing the record in this appeal informed the court appellant did not make arrangements to pay for the record.

On July 14, 2003, notification was transmitted to all parties of the Court's intent to dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution unless, within fifteen days, appellant paid or made arrangements to pay for the record and provided this court with proof of payment. See Tex. R. App. P. 37.3(b).


On July 17, 2003, appellant filed a motion for extension of time to file an affidavit of indigence. An appellant must file the affidavit of indigence in the trial court with or before the notice of appeal. Tex. R. App. P. 20.1(c)(1). The appellate court may extend the time to file an affidavit of indigence if, within 15 days after the deadline for filing the affidavit, the party files a proper motion for extension. Id. at 20.1(c)(3). Because the notice of appeal was filed on April 24, 2003, the deadline for filing a motion to extend time to file an affidavit of indigence was 15 days after that date, or May 9, 2003. Appellant=s motion for extension, filed on July 17, 2003, was not timely filed and was denied on October 23, 2003.

Accordingly, the appeal is ordered dismissed.

PER CURIAM

Judgment rendered and Opinion filed November 6, 2003.

Panel consists of Justices Yates, Hudson, and Fowler.

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.