in the Interest of D.J., a Child

Phyllis Rich v. Jack Seeley






IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS


No. 10-00-400-CV


IN THE INTEREST OF D.J., A CHILD



From the 19th District Court

McLennan County, Texas

Trial Court # 99-1747-1

                                                                                                                                                                                                                          

O P I N I O N

                                                                                                                

      The Texas Department of Protective and Regulatory Services filed suit to be designated as the managing conservator of D.J., the child the subject of this suit. DPRS’s petition names Robert Cobbs as D.J.’s alleged biological father and another man as D.J.’s presumed father. Cobbs filed a statement of paternity and sought an adjudication of his parental status. As part of a decree naming DPRS as D.J.’s permanent managing conservator, the court dismissed Cobbs’s claim. Cobbs appealed.

      The clerk’s record was filed in this Court on May 24, 2001. No reporter’s record has been filed because Cobbs failed to pay or make arrangements to pay the reporter’s fee for preparation of the record. Accordingly, we notified Cobbs by letter dated September 20, 2001 that his case would be submitted on the clerk’s record alone and his brief was due in thirty days. To date, no appellant’s brief has been filed. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.6(a).

      Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.8(a)(1) provides that if an appellant fails to timely file his brief, the Court may:

dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution, unless the appellant reasonably explains the failure and the appellee is not significantly injured by the appellant’s failure to timely file a brief.


Id. 38.8(a)(1).

      More than thirty days have passed since Cobbs’s brief was due. We notified him of this defect by letter dated December 31, 2001. Id. 42.3, 44.3. He has not responded to our letter. Id. 42.3, 38.8(a)(1). Therefore, this appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution. Id. 38.8(a)(1).

 

                                                                         PER CURIAM

Before Chief Justice Davis,

      Justice Vance, and

      Justice Gray

Dismissed for want of prosecution

Opinion delivered and filed February 20, 2002

Do not publish

[CV06]