Court of Civil Appeals of Texas, 2009

Gregorio Tamayo v. T. D. C. J. - I. D.

Gregorio Tamayo v. T. D. C. J. - I. D.
Court of Civil Appeals of Texas · Decided November 18, 2009

Gregorio Tamayo v. T. D. C. J. - I. D.

Opinion

NO

NO. 12-09-00343-CV

 

                         IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

 

            TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

 

                                      TYLER, TEXAS

 

GREGORIO TAMAYO,                                    '     APPEAL FROM THE 349TH

APPELLANT

 

V.                                                                         '     JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF

 

T.D.C.J.-I.D, ET AL.,

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 this case was signed on September 15, 2009.  Appellant, Gregorio Tamayo, timely filed a notice of appeal that failed to contain the information required by Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 9.5 and 25.1(e), i.e., a certificate of service showing service on all parties to the trial court's judgment.

            On October 15, 2009, Tamayo was notified pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 37.1 that the notice of appeal was defective for failure to comply with Rules 9.5 and 25.1(e).  He was further notified that unless he filed an amended notice of appeal on or before November 16, 2009, the appeal would be referred to the court for dismissal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(c).  The deadline for filing an amended notice of appeal has passed, and Tamayo has not corrected his defective notice of appeal.  Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for failure to comply with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(c); Feist v. Berg, No. 12-04-00004-CV, 2004 WL 252785, at *1 (Tex. App.-Tyler Feb. 11, 2004, pet. denied); Feist v. Hubert, No. 12-03-00442-CV, 2004 WL 252285, at *1 (Tex. App.-Tyler Feb. 11, 2004, pet. denied).

Opinion delivered November 18, 2009.

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

 

(PUBLISH)

 

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