Clinton Adams v. City of Dallas, Texas ( 2014 )

Order entered September 26, 2014
In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-14-01143-CV
CLINTON ADAMS, Appellant
V.
CITY OF DALLAS, TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 44th Judicial District Court
Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. DC-12-00321-B
ORDER
Before the Court is the City of Dallas’s September 15, 2014 motion to dismiss this accelerated
appeal for lack of jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a). Appellee notes the notice of appeal was
filed outside the twenty-day deadline established in rule of appellate procedure 26.1(b) but within the
fifteen-day extension period allowed under rule 26.3. See id. 26.1(b), 26.3. Appellee further notes
that appellant has not filed an extension motion under rule 26.3 nor offered a reasonable explanation
for the late filing. See id. 10.5(b), 26.3.
We ORDER appellant to file, no later than October 6, 2014, an extension motion reasonably
explaining why the notice of appeal was untimely filed. We caution appellant that failure to comply
may result in dismissal of the appeal without further notice. See id. 25.1(b), 26.2, 42.3; Garza v.
Hibernia Nat’l Bank, 227 S.W.3d 233, 233 (Tex. App.-–Houston [1st Dist.] 2007, no pet.).
/s/ CRAIG STODDART
JUSTICE