guillermo-galindez-v-jerald-hairford-and-richard-foster-individually-and ( 2009 )

NO

NO. 12-09-00384-CV

                         IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

            TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

                                      TYLER, TEXAS

GUILLERMO GALINDEZ,                              '     APPEAL FROM THE

APPELLANT

V.                                                                         '     COUNTY COURT AT LAW OF

JERALD HAIRFORD AND RICHARD

FOSTER, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS

PARTNERS OF ISIS                                         '     SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS

REAL ESTATE SERVICES; ISIS

INVESTIGATIONS, INC., AND

TIM LEE, APPELLEES

                                                      MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

         This appeal is being dismissed for failure to comply with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure.  See Tex. R. App. P.  42.3.  Pursuant to rule 32.1, the docketing statement was due to have been filed at the time the appeal was perfected, i.e., October 14, 2009.  See Tex. R. App. P. 32.1. On November 13, 2009, this court notified Appellant, Guillermo Galindez, that he should file a docketing statement immediately if he had not already done so.  On the same date, by separate letter, this court notified Galindez that the filing fee was due on or before November 23, 2009.

         Because Galindez did not file the docketing statement as requested in our November 13, 2009 letter, this court issued a second notice on December 4, 2009 advising Galindez that the docketing statement was past due.  The notice also advised Galindez that the filing fee in the appeal was due to have been paid on or before November 23, 2009, but had not been received.  See Tex. R. App. P. 5.  The notice further provided that unless the docketing statement and filing fee were filed on or before December 14, 2009, the appeal would be presented for dismissal in accordance with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.3.  The date for filing the docketing statement and the filing fee have passed, and Galindez has not complied with the court’s request or otherwise responded to the court’s notices.  Because Galindez has failed, after notice, to comply with rules 5 and 32.1, the appeal is dismissed.  See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(c).

Opinion delivered December 16, 2009.

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

(PUBLISH)