Court of Civil Appeals of Texas, 2005

Freddie Lee Walker v. Std. Sgt. Lucio J. Castro and Tony Green

Freddie Lee Walker v. Std. Sgt. Lucio J. Castro and Tony Green
Court of Civil Appeals of Texas · Decided January 26, 2005

Freddie Lee Walker v. Std. Sgt. Lucio J. Castro and Tony Green

Opinion

                              NO. 12-04-00352-CV

 

                      IN THE COURT OF APPEALS     

 

           TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

 

                                  TYLER, TEXAS

FREDDIE LEE WALKER,                                §              APPEAL FROM THE THIRD

APPELLANT

 

V.                                                                            §              JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF

STG. SGT. LUCIO J. CASTRO

AND TONY GREEN,

APPELLEES                                                       §              ANDERSON COUNTY, TEXAS

                                                                                                                                                           

                                                        MEMORANDUM OPINION

                                                                    PER CURIAM

This pro se in forma pauperis appeal is being dismissed for failure to comply with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure.  See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(c).  The judgment in the instant case was signed on November 4, 2004.  Thereafter, on November 12, 2004, Appellant filed a notice of appeal that failed to contain the information required by Rule 25.1 (e), i.e., a certificate of service showing service on all parties to the trial courts judgment. 

On January 7, 2005, Appellant was notified pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate  Procedure  37.1 that the notice of appeal was defective for failure to comply with Rule 25.1(e).  He was further notified that unless he filed an amended notice of appeal on or before February 7, 2005, the appeal would be referred to the court for dismissal.  See Tex. R. App. P.  42.3.  

On January 21, 2005, Appellant filed an amended notice of appeal.  However, the amendment does not comply with Rule 25.1(e).  Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for failure to comply with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure.  Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(c); Feist v. Berg, 12-04-00004-CV, 2004 WL 252785, at *1 (Tex. App.Tyler Feb. 11, 2004, pet. denied); Feist v. Hubert, 12-03-00442-CV, 2004 WL 252285, at *1 (Tex. App.Tyler Feb. 11, 2004, pet. denied).

Opinion delivered January 26, 2005.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and DeVasto, J.

 

                                                                       (PUBLISH)



 

 

 

 

                                                  COURT OF APPEALS

                       TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                                                                JUDGMENT

 

                                                               JANUARY 26, 2005

 

                                                           NO. 12-04-00352-CV

 

                                                         FREDDIE LEE WALKER,

                                                                         Appellant

                                                                               V.

                                  STG. SGT. LUCIO J. CASTRO AND TONY GREEN,

                                                                        Appellees

 

_____________________________________________________________________________

                                              Appeal from the 3rd Judicial District Court

                                        of Anderson County, Texas. (Tr. Ct. No. 3-39793)

_____________________________________________________________________________

 

THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record, and the same being inspected, because it is the opinion of this court that the appeal should be dismissed, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED by the court that the appeal be dismissed in accordance with the opinion of this court; and that this decision be certified to the court below for observance.

By per curiam opinion.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and DeVasto, J.


 

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.