MARVIN BROCK, Appellant v. RJT PROPERTY & MANAGEMENT, LLC, Appellee
Marvin Brock timely filed a notice of appeal on September 26, 2016. The clerk's record was filed October 6, 2016.1 There is no reporter's record in this case. Brock's brief was due to be filed in this Court on November 7, 2016. When neither a brief nor a motion to extend time for filing same was received by November 7, this Court advised Brock by letter dated November 23, 2016, that the brief was late. We also further extended the deadline for filing the brief to December 8, 2016. Finally, we warned Brock that failure to file the brief by December 8, 2016, would subject this appeal to dismissal for want of prosecution. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(a)(1), 42.3(b), (c). Brock failed to respond to our letter and did not file a brief.
However, because the November 23 letter was transmitted to Brock exclusively by email and because this Court wanted to ensure receipt of our communication by Brock, who is acting pro se in this matter, we again advised Brock by letter dated December 22, 2016, that the brief was late.2 We extended the deadline for filing the brief a second time to January 6, 2017. We again warned Brock that failure to file the brief by January 6, 2017, would subject this appeal to dismissal for want of prosecution. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(a)(1), 42.3(b), (c).
We have received no responsive communication from Brock and have not received his appellate brief. Having received no response to this Court's letters of November 23, 2016, and December 22, 2016, Brock's appeal is ripe for dismissal for want of prosecution. Consequently, pursuant to Rules 38.8 and 42.3 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, we dismiss this appeal for want of prosecution. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(a)(1), 42.3(b), (c).
1. Originally appealed to the Fifth Court of Appeals, this case was transferred to this Court by the Texas Supreme Court pursuant to Section 73.001 of the Texas Government Code. See TEX. GOV'T CODE ANN. § 73.001 (West 2013). We are unaware of any conflict between precedent of the Fifth Court of Appeals and that of this Court on any relevant issue. See TEX. R. APP. P. 41.3.
2. The December 22 letter was transmitted by first class mail and by email.
Ralph K. Burgess Justice