Judith Ann Neuse and All Occupants of 2115 Ichabod Ln, Edinburg, TX 78539 v. Nationstar Mortgage, LLC

NUMBER 13-17-00508-CV
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
____________________________________________________________
JUDITH ANN NEUSE AND ALL
OCCUPANTS OF 2115 ICHABOD
LN, EDINBURG,TX 78539, APPELLANT,
v.
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC, APPELLEE.
____________________________________________________________
On appeal from the County Court at Law No. 8
of Hidalgo County, Texas.
____________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Longoria and Hinojosa
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Hinojosa
Appellant, Russel Glenn Neuse, appealed a judgment signed by the County Court
at Law No. 8 of Hidalgo County, Texas. On September 17, 2018, the Clerk of this Court
notified appellant that that his brief failed to satisfy several of the requirements of the
Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. Appellant filed a first amended brief. On
September 28, 2018, the Clerk notified appellant that that his first amended brief again
failed to satisfy several of the requirements of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure.
Specifically, the Clerk notified appellant that his first amended brief did not contain
appropriate citations to the authorities and to the record as required by Rule 38.1(i) of the
Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. 38.1(i). The Clerk instructed
appellant to file a second amended brief. Additionally, the Clerk warned appellant that if
the second amended brief did not comply with the rules of appellate procedure, we may
affirm the judgment or dismiss the appeal. Appellant’s second amended brief fails to
comply with Rule 38.1(i) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure because it contains
no record references and fails to cite to a single appellate opinion. The Court, having
considered the documents on file and appellant’s failure to comply with the rules of
appellate procedure and the notices issued by the Clerk, is of the opinion that the appeal
should be dismissed. See id. R. 42.3(b),(c). Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED for
want of prosecution.
LETICIA HINOJOSA
Justice
Delivered and filed the
18th day of October, 2018.
2