Court Opinion

ID: 3121596
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-10-16 14:10:52.509997+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:12:44.571485
License: Public Domain

NUMBER 13-10-00319-CV

                           COURT OF APPEALS

                  THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                    CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
____________________________________________________________

MARCO A. GARZA,                                                      APPELLANT,

                                         v.

ELENA V. VETLUZHSKIKH GARZA,                      APPELLEE.
____________________________________________________________

             On Appeal from the 389th District Court
                   of Hidalgo County, Texas.
____________________________________________________________

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

      Appellant, Marco A. Garza, appealed a judgment entered by the 389th District

Court of Hidalgo County, Texas. On June 9, 2010 and July 2, 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 October 13, 2010, the Clerk notified appellant that the defect had not been

corrected and warned appellant that the appeal would be dismissed if the defect were not

cured within ten days. To date, the defect has not been corrected. See TEX. R. APP. P.

42.3(b),(c).

       Additionally, on October 13, 2010, the Clerk of this Court notified appellant, in

accordance with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.3(c), that we would dismiss this

appeal unless the $175.00 filing fee was paid.        See id. 42.3(c). Appellant has not

responded to the notice from the Clerk or paid the $175.00 filing fee. See TEX. R. APP. P.

5, 12.1(b).

       The Court, having considered the documents on file, appellant=s failure to correct

these defects, and failure to pay the filing fee, 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.

                                               2