Deirdre Murphy Alameddine v. Jihad Alameddine--Appeal from 408th Judicial District Court of Bexar County

State: Texas

Docket No: 04-05-00632-CV

Case Date: 12/07/2005

Plaintiff: THE STATE OF TEXAS

Defendant: MICHAEL JOSEPH RHINE (Concurring)

Preview:Deirdre Murphy Alameddine v. Jihad Alameddine--
Appeal from 408th Judicial District Court of Bexar
County
/**/
MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-05-00632-CV
Deirdre Murphy ALAMEDDINE,
Appellant
v.
Jihad ALAMEDDINE,
Appellee
From the 408th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2004-CI-18273
Honorable Carol H. Knight-Sheen, Judge Presiding
PER CURIAM
Sitting: Alma L. L pez, Chief Justice
Catherine Stone, Justice
Sarah B. Duncan, Justice
Delivered and Filed: December 7, 2005
DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION
file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/opinions/PDFs1/18774.html[8/20/2013 7:47:28 PM]

The clerk s record was due to be filed in this appeal on October 3, 2005. On that date, the trial court clerk filed a
notification of late record stating that the clerk s record had not been filed because appellant is not entitled to appeal
without paying the fee for the preparation of the clerk s record, and appellant had failed to pay the fee. Our records
reflected that the appellant filed an affidavit of inability to pay the costs of the appeal; however, the trial court timely
sustained the contest to the affidavit and ordered the appellant to pay the costs of the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 20.
On October 7, 2005, we ordered appellant to provide proof that the clerk s fee had been paid or arrangements had been
made to pay the clerk s fee. On October 17, 2005, appellant responded with an advisory that a hearing had been set on
her motion for new trial. In view of the pending hearing, we extended the date for appellant to respond to our order of
October 7, 2005, and ordered appellant to respond no later than November 7, 2005. Our order stated that if appellant
failed to respond within the time provided, the appeal would be dismissed for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P.
37.3(b).
On October 31, 2005, a copy of the trial court s order denying appellant s motion for new trial was filed in this court.
Appellant has not responded to our order. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution.
PER CURIAM
file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/opinions/PDFs1/18774.html[8/20/2013 7:47:28 PM]

Download 18774.pdf