Case ID: so2d_591/html/1154-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Raul H. PEREZ, Appellant, v. Hugh S. UNGER, M.D., et al., Appellees.
    No. 91-802.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Jan. 21, 1992.
    Raul H. Perez, in pro. per.
    Parenti & Falk and Norman M. Waas, George, Hartz, Lundeen & Flagg and Esther E. Galicia, Miami, for appellees.
    Before JORGENSON, GERSTEN and GODERICH, JJ.
   CORRECTED OPINION

PER CURIAM.

In a previous appeal, the plaintiff represented to this court that he would “adhere to the requirements for the prosecution of his case.” See Perez v. Unger, 571 So.2d 67 (Fla.3d DCA 1990). In addition, the plaintiff was warned that the action would be dismissed if he did not meet the requirements.

Accordingly, we affirm. See Arango v. Alvarez, 585 So.2d 1131 (Fla.3d DCA 1991).

Affirmed.