Court Opinion

ID: 3103482
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-10-16 05:28:58.706697+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:25:11.647037
License: Public Domain

NUMBER
13-11-00165-CV
 
                                 COURT
OF APPEALS
 
                     THIRTEENTH
DISTRICT OF TEXAS
 
                         CORPUS
CHRISTI - EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________
 
VIDAL CONDE,                                                                        APPELLANT,
 
                                                             v.
 
GLOBAL SPECTRUM,                                                               APPELLEE.
____________________________________________________________
 
                    On
Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 5
                                       of
Hidalgo County, Texas.
____________________________________________________________
 
                               MEMORANDUM
OPINION
 
                           Before
Justices Benavides, Vela, and Perkes
Memorandum Opinion
Per Curiam
 

Appellant,
Vidal Conde, appealed a judgment entered by the County Court at Law No. 5 of Nueces
County, Texas.  On March 28, 2011, the Clerk of this Court notified appellant
that the notice of appeal was not in compliance with Texas Rule of Appellate
Procedure 25.1(d)(2), 25.1(d)(7) and 25.1(e).  See Tex. R. App. P. 25.1.  Appellant was
advised to file an amended notice of appeal with the district clerk and forward
a copy to the Court.  In response, appellant requested an extension of time to
comply which was granted by the Court until April 22, 2011. 
The
Court did not receive an amended notice of appeal and on May 18, 2011, the
Clerk of this Court again notified appellant that the notice of appeal failed
to comply with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 25.1(d)(2), 25.1(d)(7) and
25.1(e).  See id. 25.1.  The Clerk notified appellant that the defects had
not been corrected and warned appellant that the appeal would be dismissed if
the defects were not cured within ten days.  Appellant failed to respond to the Court=s notice.
The
Court, having considered the documents on file and appellant=s failure to correct these defects, 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.                                                               
PER
CURIAM
Delivered and filed the
14th day of July, 2011