Court Opinion

ID: 3086563
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-10-16 02:50:54.790328+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:09:15.244774
License: Public Domain

NUMBER 13-13-00634-CV

                            COURT OF APPEALS

                  THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                     CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
____________________________________________________________

ROGELIO CABRERA,                                                       APPELLANT,

                                           v.

GPS HOLDINGS, LLC, A TEXAS
LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY
AND GUSTAVO F. STERN,                            APPELLEES.
____________________________________________________________

             On Appeal from the 138th District Court
                  of Cameron County, Texas.
____________________________________________________________

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

      Appellant, Rogelio Cabrera, appealed a judgment entered by the 138th District

Court of Cameron County, Texas. On January 6, 2014, 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 $195.00 filing fee was paid. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(c).
      The notice was sent to appellant's last known forwarding address; however, the

notice was returned as not deliverable. The Court sent a second notice on February 6,

2014 regular mail, which was not returned. Appellant has not responded to the notice

from the Clerk or paid the $195.00 filing fee. See TEX. R. APP. P. 5, 12.1(b).

      Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.1(b) requires unrepresented parties to sign

any document filed and "give the party's mailing address, telephone number, and fax

number, if any." See TEX. R. APP. P. 9.1(b). Appellant has neither provided this court

with a forwarding address nor taken any other action to prosecute this appeal.

      The Court, having considered the documents on file and appellant’s 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 6th
day of March, 2014.

                                            2