NUMBER 13-24-00223-CV COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

TOM ACOSTA, Appellant, v. FIRST COMMUNITY BANK, Appellee.

ON APPEAL FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 2 OF NUECES COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Tijerina and Peña Memorandum Opinion by Justice Tijerina On May 1, 2024, appellant filed a notice of appeal. On May 2, 2024, the Clerk of the Court notified appellant the notice of appeal did not comply with Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 9.1(b), 9.5, 25.1(d)(4) and (8). See TEX. R. APP. P. 9.1(b), 9.5, 25.1(d)(4) and (8). Again, on June 26, 2024, the Clerk of the Court notified appellant that a compliant notice of appeal had not been filed, and the Clerk further notified appellant that if the defects were not cured within ten days from the notice, the appeal would be dismissed. See id. R. 42.3.

Upon review of a supplemental clerk’s record received on July 23, 2024, it appears appellant filed a “response” in the trial court. However, this response does not cure the defective notice of appeal and simply states “complied” next to various requirements.

Even if given the maximum deference and appellant’s response is construed as an amended notice of appeal, it is still late and defective. Specifically, the response does not comply with Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 9.1(b), 9.5, 25.1(d)(4) and (8). See id. Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.3 permits an appellate court, on its own initiative after giving ten days’ notice to all parties, to dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution or for failure to comply with a requirement of the appellate rules or notice from the clerk requiring a response or other action within a specified time. See id. R. 42.3(b), (c). Accordingly, this appeal is hereby dismissed for want of prosecution.

JAIME TIJERINA Justice

Delivered and filed on the 1st day of August, 2024.