Court of Civil Appeals of Texas, 2010

Miguel Zaragoza v. Eli Davila

Miguel Zaragoza v. Eli Davila
Court of Civil Appeals of Texas · Decided November 18, 2010

Miguel Zaragoza v. Eli Davila

Opinion

 

 

 

 

 

 

                                       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.

 

 

 

 

 

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