Miguel Zaragoza v. Precision Tools and Chesapeake ( 2011 )

                                       NUMBER 13-10-00575-CV

                                 COURT OF APPEALS

                     THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                         CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________

MIGUEL ZARAGOZA,                                                             APPELLANT,

                                                             v.

PRECISION TOOLS AND CHESAPEAKE,                           APPELLEES.

____________________________________________________________

                          On Appeal from the 275th District Court

                                       of Hidalgo County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________

                               MEMORANDUM OPINION

                            Before Justices Garza, Benavides, and Vela

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

Appellant, Miguel Zaragoza, appealed judgments entered by the 275th District Court of Hidalgo County, Texas.  On October 22, 2010, the Clerk of this Court notified appellant that the notice of appeal failed to comply with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.5 and 25.1.  See Tex. R. App. P. 9.5, 25.1.  The Clerk directed appellant to file an amended notice of appeal with the district clerk’s office within thirty days from the date of that notice. 

On December 9, 2010, the Court again advised appellant that the notice of appeal failed to comply with Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, specifically rules 9.5(e), 25.1(d)(2), and 25.1(d)(7).  The Clerk notified appellant that the appeal would be dismissed if the defects were not cured after the expiration of ten days from the date of receipt of the Court's notice. Appellant has failed to correct the defects or otherwise respond to the Court's notices.

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

3rd day of February, 2011.