Keith Wiley v. Hollywood Kingley II, LLC Lighthouse Property Management Tropicanyon II, LLC Marque Austin Commons, LLC Okumo Austin Commons, LLC Quez Austin Commons, LLC And Capstone Real Estate

NUMBER 13-16-00368-CV
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
____________________________________________________________
KEITH WILEY, Appellant,
v.
HOLLYWOOD KINGLEY II, LLC; LIGHTHOUSE
PROPERTY MANAGEMENT; TROPICANYON II, LLC;
MARQUE AUSTIN COMMONS, LLC; OKUMO
AUSTIN COMMONS, LLC; QUEZ AUSTIN
COMMONS, LLC; AND CAPSTONE REAL ESTATE, Appellees.
____________________________________________________________
On appeal from the 201st District Court
of Travis County, Texas.
____________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Rodriguez, Benavides, and Perkes
Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam
Appellant, Keith Wiley, filed an appeal from a judgment rendered against him in
favor of appellees.1 On July 27, 2016, the Clerk of this Court notified appellant that the
1This case is before the Court on transfer from the Third Court of Appeals in Austin pursuant to a
docket equalization order issued by the Supreme Court of Texas. See TEX. GOV'T CODE ANN. § 73.001
clerk's record in the above cause was originally due on July 22, 2016, and that the deputy
district clerk, Victoria Chambers, had notified this Court that appellant failed to make
arrangements for payment of the clerk's record. The Clerk of this Court notified appellant
of this defect so that steps could be taken to correct the defect, if it could be done. See
TEX. R. APP. P. 37.3, 42.3(b),(c). Appellant was advised that, if the defect was not
corrected within ten days from the date of receipt of this notice, the appeal would be
dismissed for want of prosecution.
On August 8, 2016, the Clerk of the Court notified appellant that he was delinquent
in remitting a $205.00 filing fee. The Clerk of this Court notified appellant that the appeal
was subject to dismissal if the filing fee was not paid within ten days from the date of
receipt of this letter. See id. 42.3(b),(c).
Appellant has failed to respond to this Court’s notices and has failed to pay the
filing fee. Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION.
See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(b), (c).
PER CURIAM
Delivered and filed the
2nd day of September, 2016.
(West, Westlaw through 2015 R.S.).
2