In The
Court of Appeals
Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo
________________________
No. 07-16-00355-CV
________________________
MARIA RAMOS, APPELLANT
V.
ANN MARIE CASTANEDA, APPELLEE
On Appeal from the County Court
Deaf Smith County, Texas
Trial Court No. CI 2016-05623; Honorable D.J. Wagner, Presiding
April 28, 2017
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and PIRTLE, JJ.
Appellant, Maria G. Ramos, proceeding pro se, filed this appeal from a default
judgment in favor of Appellee, Ann Marie Castaneda. Because Ramos has yet to file a
brief, we dismiss the appeal.
The appellate record in this case was due November 7, 2016. After receiving
two extensions, the clerk’s record was filed on December 15, 2016. The reporter’s
record, however, was not filed because Ramos failed to request preparation and make
arrangements to pay for the record. See TEX. R. APP. P. 35.3(b)(2), (3). In a letter
dated November 7, 2016, we ordered Ramos to do so by November 18, or we would set
the deadline for filing her brief with any issues or points raised that did not require a
reporter’s record being considered and decided. See TEX. R. APP. P. 37.3(c). This
deadline lapsed and the reporter notified the court that Ramos had not requested the
record or made payment.
Accordingly, we deemed the reporter’s record filed as of December 15, 2016,
and notified Ramos that her brief was due by January 16, 2017. This court
subsequently granted Ramos three extensions of time to file her brief until April 3, 2017.
When she failed to file a brief by that date, the court sua sponte granted Ramos an
extension of time to file her brief until April 20, and the clerk notified her, by letter, that
failure to timely file a brief would subject the appeal to dismissal without further notice.
See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(a)(1), 42.3(b). Ramos made no response to the court’s letter
and the brief remains outstanding. Her pro se status does not exempt her from
compliance with the rules of appellate procedure. See Pena v. McDowell, 201 S.W.3d
665, 667 (Tex. 2006).
Therefore, this appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution and failure to comply
with a notice from the clerk of this court requiring action within a specified time. TEX. R.
APP. P. 38.8(a)(1); 42.3(b), (c).
Per Curiam
2