Court Opinion

ID: 3108460
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-10-16 06:20:44.478853+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:54:15.796262
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.