Jaime Garcia, D/B/A Rio Pilon Pit, Cynthia Garcia D/B/A Bravo Pit, Edmundo Ramos Tellez, Aurelia Garza Garcia, Andres De Jesus Olvera Muniz, Alfa De La Luz Hernandez Padron, and Francisco Javier Ruiz Gomez v. Hidalgo County Irrigation 6 ( 2015 )

NUMBER 13-15-00370-CV
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
____________________________________________________________
JAIME GARCIA, D/B/A RIO PILON
PIT, CYNTHIA GARCIA D/B/A
BRAVO PIT, EDMUNDO RAMOS
TELLEZ, AURELIA GARZA GARCIA,
ANDRES DE JESUS OLVERA MUNIZ,
ALFA DE LA LUZ HERNANDEZ
PADRON, AND FRANCISCO
JAVIER RUIZ GOMEZ, Appellants,
v.
HIDALGO COUNTY IRRIGATION #6, Appellee.
____________________________________________________________
On appeal from the 398th District Court
of Hidalgo County, Texas.
____________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Garza, Benavides, and Longoria
Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam
Appellants appealed a judgment entered by the 398th District Court of Hidalgo
County, Texas. On August 13, 2015, 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 and this Court within 15 days from the date of that notice.
On September 30, 2015, 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
19th day of November, 2015.
2