Court Opinion

ID: 3121591
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-10-16 14:10:47.827097+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:54:32.107279
License: Public Domain

NUMBER
13-10-00476-CV
 
                                 COURT
OF APPEALS
 
                     THIRTEENTH
DISTRICT OF TEXAS
 
                         CORPUS
CHRISTI - EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________
 
MIGUEL ZARAGOZA,                                                                  Appellant,
 
                                                             v.
 
ELI DAVILA, ET AL.,                                                                     Appellees.
____________________________________________________________
 
                           On
appeal from the 275th District Court 
                                       of
Hidalgo County, Texas.
____________________________________________________________
 
                               MEMORANDUM
OPINION
 
Before Justices Yañez, Garza, and
Benavides
Memorandum Opinion
Per Curiam
 

Appellant,
Miguel Zaragoza, appealed a judgment entered by the 275th District Court of Hidalgo
County, Texas.  On August 26, 2010, the Clerk of this Court notified appellant
that the notice of appeal failed to comply with Texas Rule of Appellate
Procedure 9.5(e) and 25.1(d)(2).  See Tex.
R. App. P. 9.5(e), 25.1(d)(2).  The Clerk directed appellant to file an
amended notice of appeal with the district clerk's office within 30 days from
the date of that notice.  On August 26, 2010, the Court received an amended
notice of appeal.  October 7, 2010, the Clerk again notified appellant that the
defects had not been corrected and warned appellant that the appeal would be
dismissed if the defects were not cured within ten days.  To date, the defects
have not been corrected.   See Tex.
R. App. P. 42.3(b),(c).  
The
Court, having considered the documents on file and appellant=s failure to correct these defects, is of the opinion
that the appeal should be dismissed.  See id.  42.3(b),(c). 
Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED for want of prosecution.                               
                                                                                                            PER
CURIAM
 
Delivered and filed the
18th day of November, 2010.