Cynthia Vaughn, D.C., Donald J. Daniels, D.C., Individually and D/B/A Daniels Chiropractic Clinic v. Susan F. Cole, D.C.

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT OF TEXAS,

AT AUSTIN









NO. 3-92-394-CV





CYNTHIA VAUGHN, D.C., DONALD J. DANIELS, D.C.,

INDIVIDUALLY AND d/b/a DANIELS CHIROPRACTIC CLINIC,



APPELLANTS



vs.





SUSAN F. COLE, D.C.,

APPELLEE









FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 250TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. 91-4168, HONORABLE PAUL R. DAVIS, JR., JUDGE PRESIDING





PER CURIAM



This is a dismissal for want of prosecution.

Generally, an appellant must file his brief within thirty days after the filing of the transcript and statement of facts, if any. Tex. R. App. P. 74(k). If the appellant fails to file his brief within the prescribed time, the appellate court may dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution, unless the appellant shows a reasonable explanation for failing to file the brief and the appellee has not suffered material injury. Tex. R. App. P. 74(l)(1).

The transcript in this cause was filed on August 6, 1992. Appellants have not filed a statement of facts. Accordingly, appellants' brief was due thirty days after the filing of the transcript, on September 8, 1992. Appellants have not filed their brief. Moreover, appellants have not filed a motion for extension of time showing a reasonable explanation for their omission. See Tex. R. App. P. 74(n). Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for want of prosecution. See Dickson v. Dickson, 541 S.W.2d 895 (Tex. Civ. App. 1976, writ dism'd w.o.j.).



[Before Justices Powers, Aboussie and B. A. Smith]

Dismissed for Want of Prosecution

Filed: October 21, 1992

[Do Not Publish]