                               NUMBER 13-90-117-CV

                             COURT OF APPEALS

                   THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                     CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
______________________________________________________________

JAMES E. CHILCOAT,                                                              Appellant,

                                             v.

VICTORIA COUNTY AIRPORT COMMISSION
AND VICTORIA COUNTY,                               Appellees.
_____________________________________________________________

  On appeal from the 24th District Court of Victoria County, Texas.
______________________________________________________________

                         MEMORANDUM OPINION
    Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Garza and Benavides
                  Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

       This appeal was abated by this Court on June 29, 1990, due to the bankruptcy of

appellant, James E. Chilcoat. See 11 U.S.C. § 362; see generally TEX . R. APP. P. 8. On

March 6, 2008, this Court entered an order requiring the parties to file, within fourteen days
of the date of that order, an advisory regarding the status of this appeal and, if applicable,

a motion to reinstate the appeal or a motion to dismiss the appeal.

       On March 14, 2008, appellees, Victoria County Airport Commission and Victoria

County, filed a motion to dismiss this appeal for want of prosecution. See TEX . R. APP. P.

42.3(b). According to appellees’ motion, appellant’s bankruptcy was dismissed more than

fifteen years ago and there has been no activity in this appeal during that period of time.

       On March 28, 2008 appellant filed a pro se motion asking this Court to retain the

appeal and abate the appeal for 120 days to allow appellant to retain an attorney and

present “a more detailed petition to protect my rights.” Appellant’s motion fails to provide

a reasonable explanation for the lack of activity in this appeal for the past fifteen years.

       Given the foregoing, the Court GRANTS appellees’ motion to dismiss and DENIES

appellant’s motion to retain. The Court DISMISSES this appeal for want of prosecution.

See id. Other pending motions, if any, are likewise DISMISSED.

                                                                        PER CURIAM

Memorandum Opinion delivered and
filed this the15th day of May, 2008.




                                              2
