Court Opinion

ID: 9388947
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-22 18:09:20.273652+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:24.070157
License: Public Domain

NUMBER 13-22-00608-CV

                                 COURT OF APPEALS

                      THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                         CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG
____________________________________________________________

FREYA ANJELIN MURRAY,                                                                   Appellant,

                                                         v.

MY GOOD SAMARITAN,                                  Appellee.
____________________________________________________________

          On appeal from the County Court at Law No. 3
                  of McLennan County, Texas.
____________________________________________________________

                             MEMORANDUM OPINION 1

       Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Silva and Peña
                 Memorandum Opinion by Justice Peña

       On December 5, 2022, appellant filed a notice of appeal. 2 On January 19, 2023,

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

         1 Appellant’s name varies throughout the record between “Angelin” and “Anjelin;” therefore, the

style reflects the spelling found on documents filed directly by appellant.
       2 This case is before the Court on transfer from the Tenth Court of Appeals in Waco pursuant to a
docket equalization order issued by the Supreme Court of Texas. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 73.001.
with the Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.3(c). Appellant was also advised that, if

the defect was not corrected within ten days from the date of the letter, the appeal would

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

        Furthermore, on January 19, 2023, the Clerk of the Court notified appellant that

she was delinquent in remitting a $205.00 filing fee. The Clerk of this Court notified

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

from the date of the notice. See id. R. 42.3(b), (c).

        Appellant has not cured the defective notice of appeal, paid the filing fee, nor

otherwise responded to the notices from the clerk requiring a response or other action

within the time specified; accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for want of

prosecution. See id. R. 42.3(b), (c).

                                                                           L. ARON PEÑA JR
                                                                           Justice

Delivered and filed on the
20th day of April, 2023

Because this is a transfer case, we apply the precedent of the Waco court of Appeals to the extent it differs
from our own. See TEX. R. APP. P. 41.
                                                     2