In re Robert Glendinning--Appeal from 218th Judicial District Court of Karnes County

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-05-00031-CV

IN RE Robert GLENDINNING

Original Mandamus Proceeding //

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Alma L. L pez, Chief Justice

Karen Angelini, Justice

Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

Delivered and Filed: February 9, 2005

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED

Relator Robert Glendinning has filed a petition for writ of mandamus, complaining that the trial court has failed to rule upon his motion for summary judgment in a timely manner.

A trial judge has a legal, nondiscretionary duty to consider and rule on properly filed motions within a reasonable time. In re Ramirez, 994 S.W.2d 682, 683 (Tex. App. San Antonio 1998, orig. proceeding). However, a trial judge abuses his discretion only if the motion has been brought to his attention and he refuses to rule on it within a reasonable time. Barnes v. State, 832 S.W.2d 424, 426 (Tex. App. Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, orig. proceeding); see also In re Chavez, 62 S.W.3d 225, 228 (Tex. App. Amarillo 2001, orig. proceeding).

There is no indication in the mandamus petition or record that, after filing the motion with the district clerk, Glendinning asked the trial court to rule on the motion or otherwise did anything to bring the motion to the trial court s attention. Accordingly, Glendinning has failed to show an abuse of discretion by the trial court. See Chavez, 62 S.W.3d at 228; Barnes, 832 S.W.2d at 424. Therefore, the petition is denied. Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(a).

PER CURIAM