Court Opinion

ID: 2925686
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-11 21:25:25.059616+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:57:52.423064
License: Public Domain

NUMBER 13-07-681-CV

                           COURT OF APPEALS

                 THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                    CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
______________________________________________________________

DIANA N. DIAZ, D.D.S.,                                                     Appellant,

                                          v.

PATTERSON DENTAL SUPPLY, INC.,                       Appellee.
_____________________________________________________________

           On appeal from the County Court at Law No. 3
                   of Cameron County, Texas
______________________________________________________________

                       MEMORANDUM OPINION
    Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Garza and Benavides
                  Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

      Appellant, Diana N. Diaz, D.D.S., appealed a summary judgment rendered against

her in favor of appellee, Patterson Dental Supply, Inc., in County Court at Law No. 3 of

Cameron County, Texas. On November 6, 2007, the Clerk of this Court notified appellant

that the clerk's record in the above cause was originally due that same day, and that
Veronica Deaton, the Deputy District Clerk of Cameron County, had notified this Court that

appellant failed to make arrangements for payment of the clerk's record. The Clerk of this

Court notified appellant of this defect so that steps could be taken to correct the defect, if

it could be done. See TEX . R. APP. P. 37.3, 42.3(b),(c). Appellant was advised that, if the

defect was not corrected within ten days from the date of receipt of this notice, the appeal

would be dismissed for want of prosecution. Appellant failed to respond to the Court’s

notice. Appellant has further failed to pay required fees as directed by the Clerk of this

Court.

         The Court, having considered the documents on file, appellant’s failure to comply

with the requirements of the appellate rules and failure to respond to the Court’s notices,

is of the opinion that the appeal should be dismissed. See id. 37.3, 42.3(b),(c).

Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED.

                                                                        PER CURIAM

Memorandum Opinion delivered and
filed this the 17th day of April, 2008.

                                              2