Court Opinion

ID: 3122988
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-10-16 14:34:26.330178+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:36:57.463273
License: Public Domain

NUMBERS 13-10-00394-CV

                                    COURT OF APPEALS

                       THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                           CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
___________________________________________________________

    IN THE INTEREST OF R.E.S., III, J.D.S. AND A.E.S., CHILDREN
____________________________________________________________

              On appeal from the 36th District Court
                 of San Patricio County, Texas.
____________________________________________________________

                                MEMORANDUM OPINION
                 Before Justices Rodriguez, Benavides, and Vela
                       Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

        Appellant, R.S.1, perfected an appeal from a judgment entered by the 36th District

Court of San Patricio County, Texas, in cause number S-09-5052-FL-A. On June 15,

2010, the Clerk of this Court notified appellant that the clerk's record in the above cause

was originally due on March 5, 2010, and that the deputy district clerk, Ernestina Roblez,

had notified this Court that appellant failed to make arrangements for payment of the

1
  In appeals from cases involving the termination of parental rights, the rules of appellate procedure require
the use of an alias to refer to a minor, Aand if necessary to protect the minor=s identity, to the minor=s parent
or other family member.” Tex. R. App. P. 9.8.
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 notices.

       The Court, having considered the documents on file, is of the opinion that the

appeal should be dismissed for want of prosecution.             See id. 37.3, 42.3(b),(c).

Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION. Any pending

motions are dismissed as moot.

                                                                       PER CURIAM

Delivered and filed the
24th day of August, 2010.

                                             2