Johnny M. Stafford v. Bowles Energy, et al Appeal from 4th District Court of Rusk County (memorandum opinion per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NO. 12-18-00165-CV IN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT TYLER, TEXAS JOHNNY M. STAFFORD, APPELLANT § APPEAL FROM THE 4TH V. § JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT BOWLES ENERGY, ET AL, APPELLEES § RUSK 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(c). On June 21, 2018, the Clerk of this Court notified Appellant that the filing fee in this appeal is due. See TEX. R. APP. P. 5. Appellant was informed that failure to remit the filing fee on or before July 2, 2018, would result in the Court’s taking appropriate action, including dismissal of the case without further notice. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(c). The date for remitting the filing fee has passed, and Appellant has not complied with the Court’s request. Also on June 21, we notified Appellant that his notice of appeal failed to contain the information specifically required by Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 9.5 and 25.1(d)-(e). See TEX. R. APP. P. 9.5, 25.1(d)-(e), 37.1. The notice warned that, unless Appellant filed a proper notice of appeal on or before July 2, the appeal would be referred to the Court for dismissal. The deadline has passed and Appellant has not filed a compliant notice of appeal or otherwise responded to this Court’s June 21 notice. Because Appellant has failed, after notice, to comply with Rules 5, 9.5, and 25.1(d)-(e), the appeal is dismissed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(c). Opinion delivered July 18, 2018. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J. (PUBLISH) COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS JUDGMENT JULY 18, 2018 NO. 12-18-00165-CV JOHNNY M. STAFFORD, Appellant V. BOWLES ENERGY, ET AL, Appellees Appeal from the 4th District Court of Rusk County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 2007-150) THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record; and the same being considered, it is the opinion of this Court that this appeal should be dismissed. It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED by this Court that this appeal be, and the same is, hereby dismissed; and that this decision be certified to the court below for observance By per curiam opinion. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J. and Neeley, J.
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.
