Court Opinion

ID: 3121595
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-10-16 14:10:51.738204+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:37:48.692936
License: Public Domain

NUMBER
13-10-00319-CV
 
                                 COURT
OF APPEALS
 
                     THIRTEENTH
DISTRICT OF TEXAS
 
                         CORPUS
CHRISTI - EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________
 
MARCO A. GARZA,                                                                APPELLANT,
 
                                                             v.
 
ELENA V. VETLUZHSKIKH
GARZA,                                       APPELLEE.
____________________________________________________________
 
                          On
Appeal from the 389th District Court 
                                       of
Hidalgo County, Texas.
____________________________________________________________
 
                               MEMORANDUM
OPINION
 
Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices
Rodriguez and Vela
Memorandum Opinion
Per Curiam
 

Appellant,
Marco A. Garza, appealed a judgment entered by the 389th District Court of Hidalgo
County, Texas.  On June 9, 2010 and July 2, 2010, the Clerk of this Court
notified appellant that the notice of appeal failed to comply with Texas Rule
of Appellate Procedure 9.5(e) and 25.1(d)(2).  See Tex. R. App. P. 9.5(e), 25.1(d)(2). 
The Clerk directed appellant to file an amended notice of appeal with the
district clerk's office within 30 days from the date of that notice.  
On
October 13, 2010, the Clerk notified appellant that the defect had not been
corrected and warned appellant that the appeal would be dismissed if the defect
were not cured within ten days.  To date, the defect has not been corrected.  See
Tex. R. App. P.  42.3(b),(c).  
Additionally,
on October 13, 2010, 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 $175.00 filing fee was paid.  See id. 42.3(c).  Appellant
has not responded to the notice from the Clerk or paid the $175.00 filing fee. 
See Tex. R. App. P. 5,
12.1(b).
The
Court, having considered the documents on file, appellant=s failure to correct these defects, and 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 
18th day of November, 2010.