Michael Smith, Lula Smith, Individually and as Next Friend of L. S., J. S., and J. S., minor children v. Jack S. Latham, Eric A. Gardner, Swift Transportation Company, Inc., a/k/a Swift Transportation Corporation d/b/a St. Swift Company, Inc., S & R Transportation, Inc., Percy Smith, Jr. and Linda Jones--Appeal from 241st District Court of Smith County

NO. 12-06-00214-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

MICHAEL SMITH, LULA SMITH, APPEAL FROM THE 241ST

INDIVIDUALLY AND AS NEXT FRIEND

OF L.S., J.S., AND J.S., MINOR CHILDREN

APPELLANTS

V.

JACK S. LATHAM, ERIC A. GARDNER, JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF

SWIFT TRANSPORTATION COMPANY,

INC., A/K/A SWIFT TRANSPORTATION

CORPORATION D/B/A ST. SWIFT COMPANY,

INC., S & R TRANSPORTATION, INC.,

PERCY SMITH, JR. AND LINDA JONES,

APPELLEES SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

This appeal is being dismissed for failure to comply with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3. Pursuant to Rule 32.1, Appellants docketing statement was due to have been filed at the time the appeal was perfected, i.e., June 19, 2006. See Tex. R. App. P. 32.1. On June 22, 2006, this Court notified Appellants that they should file a docketing statement immediately if they had not already done so.

Because Appellants did not file the docketing statement as requested in our June 22, 2006 letter, this Court issued a second notice on July 14, 2006 advising Appellants that the docketing statement was past due. The notice also advised Appellants that the filing fee in the appeal was due to have been paid on or before July 3, 2006, but had not been received. See Tex. R. App. P. 5. The notice further provided that unless the docketing statement and filing fee were filed on or before July 24, 2006, the appeal would be presented for dismissal in accordance with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.3. The date for filing the docketing statement and the filing fee have passed, and Appellants have not complied with the Court s request. Because Appellants have failed, after notice, to comply with Rules 5 and 32.1, the appeal is dismissed. SeeTex. R. App. P. 42.3(c).

Opinion delivered July 26, 2006.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J. and Griffith, J.

(PUBLISH)