Cynthia L. Barkman and Charles N. Barkman v. USAA Federal Savings Bank Appeal from County Court at Law No. 3 of Bexar County (memorandum opinion per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas MEMORANDUM OPINION No. 04-15-00306-CV Cynthia L. BARKMAN and Charles N. Barkman, Appellants v. USAA FEDERAL SAVINGS BANK, Appellee From the County Court at Law No. 3, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2015CV01936 Honorable Jason Wolff, Judge Presiding PER CURIAM Sitting: Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice Jason Pulliam, Justice Delivered and Filed: October 28, 2015 DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION Appellants’ brief was due on August 5, 2015. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.6(a). On August 24, 2015, after neither a brief nor a motion for extension of time was timely filed, we ordered Appellants to show cause in writing by September 3, 2015, why this appeal should not be dismissed for want of prosecution. See id. R. 38.8(a), 42.3(b), (c). On September 4, 2015, Appellants filed a brief. Appellants’ brief did not contain any citations to the record in either the statement of facts or argument sections. Contra id. R. 38.1(g), (i). We struck Appellants’ brief and ordered 04-15-00306-CV Appellants Cynthia L. Barkman and Charles N. Barkman to file an amended brief no later than September 28, 2015. On October 9, 2015, after no amended brief or motion for extension of time to file an amended brief was filed, we again ordered Appellants to file their amended brief and show cause in writing not later than October 19, 2015, why this appeal should not be dismissed for want of prosecution. See id. R. 38.8(a). We cautioned Appellants that if they failed to file an amended brief and show cause as ordered, we would dismiss this appeal without further notice. See id. R. 42.3(b), (c); Herrera v. Tex. State Bd. of Plumbing Examiners, No. 04-13-00870-CV, 2015 WL 4116135, at *1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio July 8, 2015, no pet.) (mem. op.); Newman v. Clark, 113 S.W.3d 622, 623 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2003, no pet.) (per curiam). To date, Appellants have not filed an amended brief or a motion for extension of time to file an amended brief. Therefore, we dismiss this appeal for want of prosecution. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(a)(1), 42.3(b). Appellee’s motion for sanctions is denied. PER CURIAM -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.
