Terry Lynn Smith and Willie Paul Greening v. Roy Clinton Farrell, Jr., Individually and as Trustee of the Roy Farrell Jr. Separate Trust

NO. 07-09-0112-CV IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT AMARILLO PANEL B JUNE 24, 2009 ______________________________ TERRY LYNN SMITH, Appellant V. ROY CLINTON FARRELL, JR., individually and as Trustee of the Roy Farrell Jr. Separate Trust, Appellee _________________________________ FROM THE 46th DISTRICT COURT OF WILBARGER COUNTY; NO. 24,777; HONORABLE DAN MIKE BIRD, JUDGE _______________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION _______________________________ Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ. Terry Lynn Smith (appellant) filed a pro se notice of appeal in effort to contest the final summary judgment entered by the trial court in favor of Roy Clinton Farrell, Jr., individually and as trustee of the Roy Farrell Jr. Separate Trust. We dismiss the appeal. The clerk’s record was filed with this court on April 6, 2009. Being an appeal from a summary judgment, no reporter’s record was necessary. See TEX . R. CIV. P. 166a(c) (stating that no oral testimony shall be received at a summary judgment hearing); Lake v. McCoy, 188 S.W.3d 376, 378 (Tex. App.–Dallas 2006, no pet.) (stating the same). So, appellant’s brief fell due on May 6, 2009. It was not received, however. By letter dated May 19, 2009, we notified appellant that the due date for the brief had lapsed, that the brief had not been filed, and that no motion to extend the deadline had been received by the court. Citing TEX . R. APP. P. 38.8, the letter also notified appellant that the appeal would be subject to dismissal unless a response reasonably explaining his failure to file a brief was submitted by May 29, 2009. On May 28, 2009, appellant filed a request for an extension of time to file his brief, which was granted to June 22, 2009. The Court’s letter also stated that if appellant’s brief was not filed by June 22, 2009, the appeal would be dismissed for want of prosecution. No brief has been filed. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. TEX . R. APP. P. 38.8(a)(1); 42.3(b). Per Curiam 2