Arroyo Colorado v. Thomas M. McMurray

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: December 29, 2011
• Docket: 13-11-00358-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

NUMBER 13-11-00358-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG ____________________________________________________________

ARROYO COLORADO, APPELLANT,

v.

THOMAS M. MCMURRAY, APPELLEE. ____________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 105th District Court of Kleberg County, Texas. ____________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Garza and Vela Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

Appellant, Arroyo Colorado, appealed a judgment entered by the 105th District

Court of Kleberg County, Texas. On June 13, 2011, the Clerk of this Court notified

appellant that the notice of appeal failed to comply with Texas Rule of Appellate

Procedure 9.5(e). See TEX. R. APP. P. 9.5(e). 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 October 12, 2011, the Clerk notified appellant that the defect had not

been corrected and warned appellant that the appeal would be dismissed if the defect

were not cured within ten days. The notice was sent to appellant’s address by certified

mail return receipt requested; however, the certified mail was returned as unclaimed and

unable to forward. Subsequently, the Clerk of the Court sent the notice to appellant by

regular mail on November 15, 2011. Appellant has not responded to the notice or

corrected the defect.

On October 7, 2011, the Clerk of this Court notified appellant, in accordance with

Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.3(c), that we would dismiss this appeal unless the

$175.00 filing fee was paid. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(c). The notice was sent to

appellant’s address by certified mail return receipt requested; however, the certified mail

was returned as unclaimed and unable to forward. Subsequently, the Clerk of the Court

sent the notice to appellant by regular mail on November 15, 2011. Appellant has not

responded to the notice or paid the $175.00 filing fee. See TEX. R. APP. P. 5, 12.1(b).

The Court, having considered the documents on file and appellant=s failure to

respond to this Court’s notices and correct the defect or pay the filing fee, is of the opinion

that the appeal should be dismissed. See id. 37.3, 42.3(b),(c). Accordingly, the appeal

is DISMISSED for want of prosecution.

PER CURIAM

Delivered and filed the 29th day of December, 2011.