NUMBER 13-22-00118-CV
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG MELLISSA PEA AND WILLIAM CRIDDLE, Appellants,
v. MIDFIRST BANK, Appellee.
On appeal from the County Court at Law No. 5 of Nueces County, Texas.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Benavides and Tijerina Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Contreras
Pro se appellants Mellissa Pea and William Criddle filed a notice of appeal from a final judgment signed on March 18, 2022. On March 25, 2022, this Court advised appellants that their notice of appeal was not in compliance with Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 9.5 and 25.1(d) (2, 4), and requested appellants to correct these defects. See TEX. R. APP. P. 9.5, 25.1(d) (2, 4). Appellants did not correct the defects in their notice of *2 appeal.
On May 5, 2022, this Court notified appellants that they had not corrected the defects in their notice of appeal and advised appellants that the appeal would be dismissed if the defects were not corrected within ten days. See id. R. 42.3. Appellants neither responded to the Court’s notice nor corrected the defects in their notice of appeal.
Appellate courts possess the authority to dismiss an appeal for want of prosecution when an appellant in a civil case fails to timely file the appellant’s brief and gives no reasonable explanation for the failure. See id. R. 38.8(a)(1); id. R. 42.3(b); Am. Bail Bonds v. City of El Paso, 225 S.W.3d 612, 612 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2006, no pet.); Newman v. Clark, 113 S.W.3d 622, 623 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2003, no pet.) (per curiam). Similarly, courts may dismiss an appeal for want of prosecution generally or because the appellant has failed to comply with a requirement of the appellate rules, a court order, or a notice from the appellate court clerk requiring a response or other action within a specified time. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3 (b), (c).
The Court, having examined and fully considered the documents on file, appellants’ failure to respond to the Court’s directives, and appellants’ failure to correct the defects in their notice of appeal, is of the opinion that this appeal should be dismissed. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. See id. R. 42.3(b), (c).
DORI CONTRERAS Chief Justice
Delivered and filed on the 26th day of May, 2022.