Ebony Jones v. DSRE Centex Partners Appeal from County Court At Law No. 10 of Bexar County (memorandum opinion per curiam)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas MEMORANDUM OPINION No. 04-18-00725-CV Ebony JONES, Appellant v. DSRE CENTEX PARTNERS, LLC, Appellee From the County Court at Law No. 10, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2018CV03487 Honorable Karen Crouch, Judge Presiding 1 PER CURIAM Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice Beth Watkins, Justice Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice Delivered and Filed: April 10, 2019 DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION Appellant Ebony Jones filed a pro se notice of appeal from a September 28, 2018 judgment. Appellant’s brief was originally due December 31, 2018, but was not filed. We ordered appellant to file her brief in this court on or before January 18, 2019, or we would dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. On January 18, 2019, appellant filed her brief. However, by order dated January 24, 2019, we struck appellant’s brief because it failed to comply with numerous provisions The Honorable J. Frank Davis is the presiding judge of County Court at Law No. 10, Bexar County, Texas. However, the judgment in this case was signed by the Honorable Karen Crouch, former presiding judge of County Court at Law No. 10, Bexar County, Texas. 1 04-18-00725-CV of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 9.4, 9.5, 38.1. We ordered appellant to file an amended brief on or before February 25, 2019. Neither the amended brief nor a motion for extension of time was filed. Accordingly, on March 7, 2018, we ordered appellant to file, not later than March 18, 2019, appellant’s amended brief and a written response reasonably explaining her failure to timely file the brief. We advised appellant that if she failed to file the brief and the response as ordered, we would dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. See id. R. 38.8(a). Appellant has filed neither the amended brief nor the written response. We therefore order this appeal dismissed for want of prosecution. We further order that no costs be assessed against appellant because she is indigent. 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.