Court Opinion

ID: 3088534
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-10-16 03:27:49.394919+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:49:15.949312
License: Public Domain

NUMBER 13-13-00216-CV

                           COURT OF APPEALS

                 THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                    CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
____________________________________________________________

JOE PADILLA,                                                            Appellant,

                                         v.

FEDERAL NATIONAL
MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION,                               Appellee.
____________________________________________________________

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

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

      Appellant, Joe Padilla, appealed a judgment entered by the County Court at Law

No. 3 of Cameron County, Texas. On April 25, 2013, the Clerk of this Court notified

appellant that the notice of appeal failed to comply with Texas Rule of Appellate

Procedure 9.5(e). See TEX. R. APP. P. 9.5(e). 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 June 20, 2013, the Clerk notified appellant that the defect had not been

corrected and warned appellant that the appeal would be dismissed if the defect was not

cured within ten days. Appellant has not responded to the notice from the Clerk or

corrected the defect.

       An appellate court may dismiss a civil appeal for want of prosecution or failure to

comply with a notice from the clerk requiring a response or other action within a specified

time. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b),(c). The Court, having considered the documents on

file, and appellant’s failure to correct the defect, 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 and failure to comply with a notice from the Court. See id.

                                                                         PER CURIAM

Delivered and filed the
15th day of August, 2013.

                                               2