roger-fay-v-texas-am-university-geochemical-and-environmental-research ( 2015 )


Menu:
  •       TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
    NO. 03-15-00521-CV
    Roger Fay, Appellant
    v.
    Texas A&M University, Geochemical and Environmental Research Group;
    The College of Geosciences and Maritime Studies; Dr. Ray Bowen; Dr. Robert Duce;
    Dr. Norman Guinasso; Dr. Roger Sassen; and Dr. David Schink, Appellees
    FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 200TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
    NO. 97-08888, HONORABLE AMY CLARK MEACHUM, JUDGE PRESIDING
    MEMORANDUM OPINION
    Roger Fay has appealed from a judgment dismissing, for want of subject matter
    jurisdiction, a suit he filed under the Texas Whistleblower Act. On September 29, 2015, the Clerk
    of this Court notified Fay that the reporter’s record was overdue and that if he did not make
    arrangements to have the reporter’s record filed, his opening brief would be due on October 29,
    2015.1 Fay did not make these arrangements, and the reporter’s record has not been filed.
    Fay then failed to file his brief by the October 29 deadline. After Fay failed to
    file his brief timely, the Clerk of this Court sent notice to him—on November 4, 2015—advising
    that his brief was overdue and that if he did not file a brief or otherwise respond with a
    1
    See Tex. R. App. P. 35.3(b), (c), 37.3(c) (regarding reporter’s record); see 
    id. R. 38.6(a)
    (specifying time for appellant to file brief).
    reasonable explanation by November 16, 2015, his appeal would be subject to dismissal for
    want of prosecution.2 The November 16 deadline has passed, and to date Fay has not filed a brief
    or otherwise responded. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for want of prosecution.3
    __________________________________________
    Bob Pemberton, Justice
    Before Chief Justice Rose, Justices Pemberton and Field
    Dismissed for Want of Prosecution
    Filed: November 25, 2015
    2
    See 
    id. R. 38.8(a)(1)
    (if appellant fails to timely file a brief, Court may dismiss appeal for
    want of prosecution unless appellant reasonably explains the failure and appellee is not significantly
    injured by that failure).
    3
    See 
    id. R. 42.3(b).
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 03-15-00521-CV

Filed Date: 11/25/2015

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 11/25/2015