Maria Ramos v. Ann Marie Castaneda Appeal from County Court of Deaf Smith County (memorandum opinion per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
In The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo ________________________ No. 07-16-00355-CV ________________________ MARIA RAMOS, APPELLANT V. ANN MARIE CASTANEDA, APPELLEE On Appeal from the County Court Deaf Smith County, Texas Trial Court No. CI 2016-05623; Honorable D.J. Wagner, Presiding April 28, 2017 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and PIRTLE, JJ. Appellant, Maria G. Ramos, proceeding pro se, filed this appeal from a default judgment in favor of Appellee, Ann Marie Castaneda. Because Ramos has yet to file a brief, we dismiss the appeal. The appellate record in this case was due November 7, 2016. After receiving two extensions, the clerk’s record was filed on December 15, 2016. The reporter’s record, however, was not filed because Ramos failed to request preparation and make arrangements to pay for the record. See TEX. R. APP. P. 35.3(b)(2), (3). In a letter dated November 7, 2016, we ordered Ramos to do so by November 18, or we would set the deadline for filing her brief with any issues or points raised that did not require a reporter’s record being considered and decided. See TEX. R. APP. P. 37.3(c). This deadline lapsed and the reporter notified the court that Ramos had not requested the record or made payment. Accordingly, we deemed the reporter’s record filed as of December 15, 2016, and notified Ramos that her brief was due by January 16, 2017. This court subsequently granted Ramos three extensions of time to file her brief until April 3, 2017. When she failed to file a brief by that date, the court sua sponte granted Ramos an extension of time to file her brief until April 20, and the clerk notified her, by letter, that failure to timely file a brief would subject the appeal to dismissal without further notice. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(a)(1), 42.3(b). Ramos made no response to the court’s letter and the brief remains outstanding. Her pro se status does not exempt her from compliance with the rules of appellate procedure. See Pena v. McDowell, 201 S.W.3d 665, 667 (Tex. 2006). Therefore, this appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution and failure to comply with a notice from the clerk of this court requiring action within a specified time. TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(a)(1); 42.3(b), (c). 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.
