Amado Barron Estrada v. Herman Schaffer, M. D.

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: March 23, 2006
• Docket: 13-05-00285-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

                              NUMBER 13-05-285-CV

                         COURT OF APPEALS

                     THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                         CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

AMADO BARRON ESTRADA,                                                        Appellant,

                                                             v.                               

HERMAN SCHAFFER, M.D., ET AL.,                                             Appellees.

         On appeal from the 156th District Court of Bee County, Texas.

                               MEMORANDUM OPINION

                         Before Justices Hinojosa, Yañez, and Garza

                            Memorandum Opinion by Justice Garza

By two issues, appellant, Armando Barron Estrada, argues that the trial court erred by granting summary judgment in favor of appellees on appellant=s claims against them. We affirm.

In his first issue, appellant complains generally that appellees= motion for summary judgment failed to comply with rule 166a.  See Tex. R. Civ. P. 166a.  Appellant=s brief does not substantiate this contention by demonstrating with argument, and appropriate citation to the record and controlling authorities, the specific respects in which appellees= motion for summary judgment deviated from the rule and therefore could not have been properly granted by the trial court.  See id.; Tex. R. App. P. 38.1(h).  Appellant=s first issue is therefore overruled.

In his second issue, appellant contends that the award of summary judgment was improper because the trial court did not set a date for hearing appellees= motion.   In the alternative, appellant argues that, if the trial court did set a date for hearing the motion, it failed to give appellant proper notice of the setting.  Appellant contends that he was thus effectively prevented from filing a response to appellees= motion.  

The record does not support appellant=s contentions.  The supplemental clerk=s record contains a letter to appellant from the court administrator.  The letter, which is dated September 23, 2004, informs appellant that a hearing on appellees= motion for summary judgment will be held on October 24, 2004 at 10:00 AM, nearly a full month after appellees= motion was filed.  The letter specifies that the trial court will decide the matter by Asubmission of briefs only.@  The clerk=s record contains an order entered after the hearing, which shows that the trial court granted appellees= motion for summary judgment on October 30, 2004. 

Appellant has failed to demonstrate how the notice documented in this record was inadequate or otherwise impaired or prejudiced him in preparing a response to appellees= motion for summary judgment.  Tex. R. Civ. P. 166a; Tex. R. App. P. 38.1(h).  Accordingly, appellant=s second issue is overruled.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.                                                                                                       

_______________________

DORI CONTRERAS GARZA,

Justice

Memorandum Opinion delivered and

filed this the 23rd_day of March, 2006.