From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Thompson v. Rosado

COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH
Apr 12, 2012
NO. 02-11-00509-CV (Tex. App. Apr. 12, 2012)

Opinion

NO. 02-11-00509-CV

04-12-2012

COREY THOMPSON APPELLANT v. AMARYLIS ROSADO, DUSTIN GOULD, AND GREGORY SMITH APPELLEES


FROM THE 78TH DISTRICT COURT OF WICHITA COUNTY


MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT

Appellant Corey Thompson filed his initial brief on March 2, 2012, and we notified him by letter that same date that his brief did not comply with rules of appellate procedure 9.4(h) and 38.1(d), (g), (i), and (k). We directed Thompson to file an amended brief within ten days and explained that failure to do so may result in striking his brief and dismissal of the appeal. Thompson has not responded to our notice or filed an amended brief. Accordingly, we strike Thompson's brief and dismiss this appeal for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a), 38.9(a), 42.3(b), 42.3(c), 43.2(f).

PER CURIAM PANEL: MEIER, J.; LIVINGSTON, C.J.; and GABRIEL, J.

See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.


Summaries of

Thompson v. Rosado

COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH
Apr 12, 2012
NO. 02-11-00509-CV (Tex. App. Apr. 12, 2012)
Case details for

Thompson v. Rosado

Case Details

Full title:COREY THOMPSON APPELLANT v. AMARYLIS ROSADO, DUSTIN GOULD, AND GREGORY…

Court:COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH

Date published: Apr 12, 2012

Citations

NO. 02-11-00509-CV (Tex. App. Apr. 12, 2012)

Citing Cases

Smith v. Phoenix Ins. Co.

There can be no doubt of the soundness of this distinction, and no difficulty, we think, in showing that it…