Court Opinion

ID: 3108457
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-10-16 06:20:39.080264+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:26:26.603078
License: Public Domain

NUMBER 13-10-00575-CV

                           COURT OF APPEALS

                 THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                    CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
____________________________________________________________

MIGUEL ZARAGOZA,                                                     APPELLANT,

                                         v.

PRECISION TOOLS AND CHESAPEAKE,                  APPELLEES.
____________________________________________________________

             On Appeal from the 275th District Court
                   of Hidalgo County, Texas.
____________________________________________________________

                        MEMORANDUM OPINION
                  Before Justices Garza, Benavides, and Vela
                      Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

      Appellant, Miguel Zaragoza, appealed judgments entered by the 275th District

Court of Hidalgo County, Texas. On October 22, 2010, the Clerk of this Court notified

appellant that the notice of appeal failed to comply with Texas Rule of Appellate

Procedure 9.5 and 25.1. See TEX. R. APP. P. 9.5, 25.1. The Clerk directed appellant to
file an amended notice of appeal with the district clerk’s office within thirty days from the

date of that notice.

       On December 9, 2010, the Court again advised appellant that the notice of appeal

failed to comply with Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, specifically rules 9.5(e),

25.1(d)(2), and 25.1(d)(7).    The Clerk notified appellant that the appeal would be

dismissed if the defects were not cured after the expiration of ten days from the date of

receipt of the Court's notice. Appellant has failed to correct the defects or otherwise

respond to the Court's notices.

       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
3rd day of February, 2011.

                                             2