RHONDA LYNN CHESSER, Appellant, v. DANIEL LINDSTROM, Appellee.
This appeal is before the Court on its own motion to determine whether it should be dismissed for want of prosecution. Finding that Appellant has not responded to an inquiry from the Clerk of the Court, we dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. See TEX.R.APP.P. 42.3(c)(authorizing dismissal of the appeal where the appellant fails to comply with a notice from the clerk requiring a response within a specified time).
On March 7, 2017, the trial court entered a summary judgment evicting Appellant, Rhonda Lynn Chesser, from real property located in El Paso, Texas, and granting Appellee, Daniel Lindstrom possession of the property. Appellant filed notice of appeal and the trial court set the supersedeas bond at $32,795. On March 14, 2017, Appellant filed a motion asking the trial court to reduce the supersedeas amount, but the clerk's record does not contain an order on the motion. Three days later, on March 17, 2017, Appellant filed in the trial court a pro se motion to non-suit the appeal. Appellant has not filed a motion to dismiss the appeal in this Court, but the motion to non-suit the appeal was included in the clerk's record. On May 11, 2017, the Clerk of the Court sent a letter to Appellant notifying her that the Court had reviewed the motion to non-suit the appeal, and giving her notice of the Court's intent to dismiss the appeal unless she filed a response within ten days showing that grounds existed for the appeal to continue. Appellant has not filed any response to the inquiry. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. See TEX.R.APP.P. 42.3(c).
GINA M. PALAFOX, Justice