RONALD VAN METER, ROBERT HAWK AND MICHAEL TURNER v. DATACOM CUSTOM MANUFACTURING, INC.--Appeal from 332nd District Court of Hidalgo County

Annotate this Case
NUMBER 13-03-284-CV
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________________

 

RONALD VAN METER, ET AL., Appellants,

 
v.

DATACOM CUSTOM MANUFACTURING, INC., Appellee.

____________________________________________________________________

 
On appeal from the 332nd District Court
of Hidalgo County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________________

 
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Hinojosa, Yanez, and Garza
Opinion Per Curiam

Appellants, RONALD VAN METER, ET AL., perfected an appeal from a judgment entered by the 332nd District Court of Hidalgo County, Texas, in cause number C-1245-02-F. The clerk's record was received on May 16, 2003. No reporter's record was filed. Appellant's brief was due on June 16, 2003. To date, no appellate brief has been received.

When the appellant has failed to file a brief in the time prescribed, the Court may dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution, unless the appellant reasonably explains the failure and the appellee is not significantly injured by the appellant's failure to timely file a brief. Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a)(1).

On July 16, 2003, notice was given to all parties that this appeal was subject to dismissal pursuant to Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a)(1). Appellants were given ten days to explain why the cause should not be dismissed for failure to file a brief. To date, no response has been received.

The Court, having examined and fully considered the documents on file, appellants' failure to file a proper appellate brief, this Court's notice, and appellants' failure to respond, is of the opinion that the appeal should be dismissed for want of prosecution. The appeal is hereby DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION.

PER CURIAM

 

Opinion delivered and filed

this the 21st day of August, 2003.

 

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.