Dred W. Martin v. William T. Oliver, D.D.S. and William T. Oliver, D.D.S., Inc.--Appeal from 2nd 25th District Court of Gonzales County
Annotate this CaseNUMBER 13-04-431-CV
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
____________________________________________________________________
DRED W. MARTIN, Appellant,
v.
WILLIAM T. OLIVER, D.D.S. AND WILLIAM T.
OLIVER, D.D.S., INC., Appellees.
____________________________________________________________________
On appeal from the 2nd 25th District Court
of Gonzales County, Texas.
____________________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Hinojosa, Ya ez, and Garza
Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam
Appellant, DRED W. MARTIN, perfected an appeal from a judgment entered by the 2nd 25th District Court of Gonzales County, Texas, in cause number 21,983. The clerk s record was filed on August 16, 2004. The reporter s record was filed on November 18,2004 and January 10, 2005. Appellant s brief was due on February 9, 2005. 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 March 8, 2005, notice was given to all parties that this appeal was subject to dismissal pursuant to Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a)(1). Appellant was 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, appellant s failure to file a proper appellate brief, this Court s notice, and appellant s 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
Memorandum Opinion delivered and filed
this the 7th day of April, 2005
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.