Miguel Zaragoza v. Eli Davila ( 2010 )


Menu:
  •   

     

     

     

     

     

     

                                           NUMBER 13-10-00476-CV

     

                                     COURT OF APPEALS

     

                         THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

     

                             CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

    ____________________________________________________________

     

    MIGUEL ZARAGOZA,                                                                  Appellant,

     

                                                                 v.

     

    ELI DAVILA, ET AL.,                                                                     Appellees.

    ____________________________________________________________

     

                               On appeal from the 275th District Court

                                           of Hidalgo County, Texas.

    ____________________________________________________________

     

                                   MEMORANDUM OPINION

     

    Before Justices Yañez, Garza, and Benavides

    Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

     


    Appellant, Miguel Zaragoza, appealed a judgment entered by the 275th District Court of Hidalgo County, Texas.  On August 26, 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 August 26, 2010, the Court received an amended notice of appeal.  October 7, 2010, the Clerk again 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.  To date, the defects have not been corrected.   See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b),(c). 

    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.  42.3(b),(c). Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED for want of prosecution.                              

                                                                                                                PER CURIAM

     

    Delivered and filed the

    18th day of November, 2010.

     

     

     

     

     

Document Info

Docket Number: 13-10-00476-CV

Filed Date: 11/18/2010

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/16/2015