Court Opinion

ID: 3095981
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-10-16 04:34:47.56582+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:20:16.725035
License: Public Domain

NUMBER 13-12-00074-CV

                             COURT OF APPEALS

                   THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                     CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
____________________________________________________________

ROBERTO ARGUETA,                                                              Appellant,

                                            v.

R&R CONSTRUCTION MARINE SERVICES,
RLS BUILDERS, AND RICK L. STAYNER,
INDIVIDUALLY AND D/B/A R&R CONSTRUCTION
MARINE SERVICES AND RLS BUILDERS,                   Appellees.
____________________________________________________________

              On Appeal from the 410th District Court
                  of Montgomery County, Texas.
____________________________________________________________

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

      Appellant, Roberto Argueta, filed an appeal from a judgment rendered against him

in favor of appellees. On February 22, 2012, the Clerk of this Court notified appellant

that the clerk's record in the above cause was originally due on February 7, 2012, and that
the deputy district clerk, Leah Timmons, had notified this Court that appellant failed to

make arrangements for payment of the clerk's record. The Clerk of this Court notified

appellant of this defect so that steps could be taken to correct the defect, if it could be

done. See TEX. R. APP. P. 37.3, 42.3(b),(c).      Appellant was advised that, if the defect

was not corrected within ten days from the date of receipt of this notice, the appeal would

be dismissed for want of prosecution.

       On March 9, 2012 and April 12, 2012, the Clerk of the Court notified appellant that

he was delinquent in remitting a $175.00 filing fee. The Clerk of this Court notified

appellant that the appeal was subject to dismissal if the filing fee was not paid within ten

days from the date of receipt of the letter. See id. 42.3(b),(c).

       Appellant has failed to respond to this Court=s notices and has failed to pay the

filing fee. Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION.

See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(b), (c).

                                                 PER CURIAM

Delivered and filed the
17th day of May, 2012.

                                             2