Court Opinion

ID: 2922708
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-11 03:00:17.217466+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:58:12.042516
License: Public Domain

NUMBER 13-04-565-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
___________________________________________________________________

EDUARDO REYNA, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS
PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE 
OF ELVA REYNA, DECEASED, ET AL.,                               Appellants,

v.

JESUS RODRIGUZ-AGUERO, M.D.,                                      Appellee.
___________________________________________________________________

On appeal from the 92nd District Court 
of Hidalgo County, Texas
___________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Hinojosa, Yañez, and Garza
Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

         Appellants, EDUARDO REYNA, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS PERSONAL
REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF ELVA REYNA, DECEASED, ET AL., attempted
to perfect an appeal from a judgment entered by the 92nd District Court of Hidalgo
County, Texas, in cause number C-352-03-A.  Judgment in this cause was signed on
June 11, 2004.  A timely motion for new trial was filed on July 8, 2004.  Pursuant
to Tex. R. App. P. 26.1, appellants’ notice of appeal was due on September 9, 2004,
but was not filed until September 24, 2004.  
         Notice of this defect was given so that steps could be taken to correct the
defect, if it could be done.  Appellants were advised that, if the defect was not
corrected within ten days from the date of receipt of this Court’s letter, the appeal
would be dismissed.  To date, no response has been received from appellants. 
Appellee has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal.
         The Court, having examined and fully considered the documents on file,
appellants’ failure to timely perfect their appeal, appellants’ failure to respond to this
Court’s notice, and appellee’s motion to dismiss the appeal,  is of the opinion that the
appeal should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.  Appellee’s motion to dismiss the
appeal is GRANTED, and the appeal is hereby DISMISSED FOR WANT OF
JURISDICTION.
                                                               PER CURIAM

Memorandum Opinion delivered and filed this
the 24th day of March, 2005.