DocketNumber： 07-11-00024-CV
Filed Date： 2/16/2011
Status： Precedential
Modified Date： 10/16/2015
NO. 07-11-0024-CV
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AT AMARILLO
PANEL B
FEBRUARY 16, 2011
______________________________
CRAIG E. MENDENHALL,
Appellant
V.
DR. DHIRAJAL PATEL, DR. BENJAMIN LEEAH,
JOHN H. ADAMS, TOSHA JAMES,
Appellee
_________________________________
FROM THE 251st DISTRICT COURT OF POTTER COUNTY;
NO. 98,7721-00-C; HONORABLE ANA ESTEVEZ, PRESIDING
_______________________________
ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL
_______________________________
Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ.
Appellant has filed a motion to dismiss. Without passing on the merits of the case, we grant the motion pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.1(a)(1) and dismiss the appeal. Having dismissed the appeal at appellant=s request, no motion for rehearing will be entertained, and our mandate will issue forthwith.
Brian Quinn
Chief Justice
the July 7th order, this Court directed that legal counsel be engaged to represent the interests of Dale Sue Jones and that a notice of representation be filed in this Court on or before September 3, 2010, noting that failure to comply would result in dismissal. This Court also ordered that Dale Sue Jones's brief on the merits be filed on or before October 4, 2010, again noting that failure to comply would result in dismissal.
On October 7, 2010, Stanley Ray Jones filed "Appellant's Application for Extension of Time to Obtain Counsel." By the motion, Mr. Jones represents that he requires an extension to employ counsel to represent the interests of Dale Sue Jones.[1] First, we note, that Mr. Jones, by filing a motion for extension of time to employ counsel on behalf of Dale Sue Jones, is attempting to represent the Estate of Dale Sue Jones. This he cannot do. Consequently, we take no action on that motion. However, even if we were to consider the merits of that motion, we would deny the relief requested because not only has the Estate of Dale Sue Jones been afforded an adequate opportunity to retain counsel and failed to do so, the motion itself lacks substantive merit.
As both deadlines which were set by the July 7th order have lapsed, we dismiss that portion of the appeal as it pertains to the claims of Dale Sue Jones. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3 (b) and (c). Only the issues raised by Stanley Ray Jones in his pro se brief will be considered following submission of this appeal.
Appellee, New Reflections, filed its brief in response to Stanley Ray Jones's brief on September 14, 2010. Per the July 7th order, Dr. Ted Scott's Appellee's Brief in response to the issues raised by Stanley Ray Jones is due on or before November 3, 2010.
It is so ordered.
Per Curiam
[1]Stanley Ray Jones's pro se brief on the merits was filed on May 13, 2010.