Court Opinion

ID: 7214619
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-07-25 00:14:09.720868+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:16:57.923074
License: Public Domain

NUMBER 13-22-00175-CV

                             COURT OF APPEALS

                   THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                     CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG
____________________________________________________________

LESLIE GAIL RAMOS,                                                          Appellant,

                                                v.

MELINDA BOLDT,
MELISSA CUELLAR PEREZ, AND
MARC ANTHONY PEREZ,                                Appellees.
____________________________________________________________

          On appeal from the County Court at Law No. 5
                   of Nueces County, Texas.
____________________________________________________________

                          MEMORANDUM OPINION

  Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Longoria and Tijerina
          Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Contreras

      This matter is before the Court on its own motion. On April 20, 2022 and May 26,

2022, the Clerk of the Court notified appellant that her notice of appeal was not in

compliance with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 9.5(e) and 25.1(d). Appellant

was provided thirty days from the first notice and ten days from the second notice to cure
the defects, if it could be done. Appellant was further advised, if the defects were not

corrected within the time provided, the appeal would be dismissed. See TEX. R. APP. P.

42.3(b), (c).

       Furthermore, on April 20, 2022, the Clerk of the Court instructed appellant to file a

docketing statement within fifteen days from the date of the notice. On May 18, 2022, the

Clerk of the Court notified appellant the docketing statement had not been filed and

instructed appellant to immediately complete and return the docketing statement. To date,

no docketing statement has been filed.

       Appellant failed to cure the defect in her notice of appeal and has not otherwise

responded to the clerk’s notices. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for want of

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

                                                               DORI CONTRERAS
                                                               Chief Justice

Delivered and filed on the
21st day of July, 2022.

                                             2