William Earl Cunningham v. University of Texas Medical Branch

Opinion issued December 3, 2009









In The

Court of Appeals

For The

First District of Texas





NO. 010900512CV





WILLIAM EARL CUNNINGHAM, Appellant


V.


UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS MEDICAL BRANCH, Appellee





On Appeal from the 10th District Court

Galveston County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 07CV0800





MEMORANDUM OPINIONOn July 17, 2008, the trial court signed the judgment being appealed. Appellant timely filed a motion for new trial on July 29, 2008, which would extend the time for filing a notice of appeal to October 15, 2008. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.1(a)(1) (extending time to file notice of appeal to 90 days from date judgment is signed). The clerk’s record shows that the notice of appeal was not filed until April 21, 2009, long after the 90-day deadline to file the notice of appeal.

          On October 1, 2009, the Clerk of the Court notified appellant that it appeared that his notice of appeal was not timely filed, and requested him to file a written response to the notice, providing a detailed explanation to show that this Court has jurisdiction of this case. The notice from the Clerk of the Court advised appellant that the appeal was subject to dismissal for want of jurisdiction if appellant did not adequately respond. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a) (allowing involuntary dismissal of case). Appellant did not respond to the notice from the Clerk of the Court.

          We dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. See Thomas v. Texas Department of Criminal Justice—Institutional Division, 3 S.W.3d 665, 666-67 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1999, no pet.) (dismissing for want of jurisdiction appellants’ appeal because he did not file his notice of appeal within 90 days of the signing of judgment appealed in case in which he had filed post-judgment pleading extending filing time under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 26.1(a)(1)-(4)). We deny all pending motions.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Jennings, Higley, and Sharp.