Fourth Court of Appeals
San Antonio, Texas
MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-16-00480-CV
Phyllis BOWSER,
Appellant
v.
Ronald WREN,
Appellee
From the County Court at Law No. 10, Bexar County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2014CV02075
Honorable David J. Rodriguez, Judge Presiding
PER CURIAM
Sitting: Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice
Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice
Jason Pulliam, Justice
Delivered and Filed: November 16, 2016
DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION
In this appeal, Appellant’s brief was due on September 14, 2016. See TEX. R. APP. P.
38.6(a). Two days before the brief was due, pro se appellant Phyllis Bowser filed a motion for
extension of time to file the brief until October 14, 2016, and this court granted Appellant’s motion.
On October 14, 2016, Appellant filed a pro se motion asking for the case to be transferred to a
lower county court or for this court to dismiss her appeal—whichever is the appropriate action.
She also stated she has been unable to retain an attorney for her appeal, but she “needs to be able
to represent herself Pro Se.”
04-16-00480-CV
We construed Appellant’s filing as a motion to dismiss this appeal. See id. R. 42.1(a)(1).
On October 18, 2016, we advised Appellant she could represent herself in this appeal, but if she
wished to do so, we ordered her to advise this court in writing by October 28, 2016, and file a
motion for extension of time to file her brief. We warned Appellant that unless she affirmatively
responded in writing as ordered, we would dismiss her appeal without further notice. See id.; id.
R. 42.3(b), (c); In re J.R., No. 04-08-00494-CV, 2009 WL 97632, at *1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio
Jan. 14, 2009, no pet.) (mem. op.) (per curiam).
On October 31, 2016, after the deadline to respond had passed, Appellant filed a “Motion
for Continuance and Mediation.” Appellant’s response, contrary to the express requirement in our
October 18, 2016 order, is not her brief or a motion for extension of time to file her brief. Instead,
Appellant requests that we refer this case to mediation.
Appellant’s motion to refer this case to mediation is denied. As we warned Appellant we
would do if she did not timely respond by filing her brief or a motion for extension of time to file
her brief, we dismiss this appeal for want of prosecution. See id. R. 38.8(a)(1), 42.3(b).
PER CURIAM
-2-