Court Opinion

ID: 4043625
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-09-28 23:24:18.773193+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:59:21.060052
License: Public Domain

NUMBER 13-15-00370-CV

                   COURT OF APPEALS

            THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

              CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
____________________________________________________________

JAIME GARCIA, D/B/A RIO PILON
PIT, CYNTHIA GARCIA D/B/A
BRAVO PIT, EDMUNDO RAMOS
TELLEZ, AURELIA GARZA GARCIA,
ANDRES DE JESUS OLVERA MUNIZ,
ALFA DE LA LUZ HERNANDEZ
PADRON, AND FRANCISCO
JAVIER RUIZ GOMEZ,                                    Appellants,

                               v.

HIDALGO COUNTY IRRIGATION #6,                    Appellee.
____________________________________________________________

             On appeal from the 398th District Court
                   of Hidalgo County, Texas.
____________________________________________________________

                 MEMORANDUM OPINION
         Before Justices Garza, Benavides, and Longoria
                Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam
       Appellants appealed a judgment entered by the 398th District Court of Hidalgo

County, Texas. On August 13, 2015, the Clerk of this Court notified appellant that the

notice of appeal failed to comply with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.5(e). See

TEX. R. APP. P. 9.5(e). The Clerk directed appellant to file an amended notice of appeal

with the district clerk's office and this Court within 15 days from the date of that notice.

On September 30, 2015, the Clerk notified appellant that the defect had not been

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

cured within ten days. Appellant has not responded to the notice from the Clerk or

corrected the defect.

       An appellate court may dismiss a civil appeal for want of prosecution or failure to

comply with a notice from the clerk requiring a response or other action within a specified

time. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b),(c). The Court, having considered the documents on

file, and appellant’s failure to correct the defect, is of the opinion that the appeal should

be dismissed. See id. 37.3, 42.3(b),(c). Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED for want

of prosecution and failure to comply with a notice from the Court. See id.

                                                  PER CURIAM

Delivered and filed the
19th day of November, 2015.

                                             2