Gloria Salinas Ybarra, Felipe Ybarra Jr., and Melody Garcia, Individually and as Next Friends or representatives/heirs of the Estate of Alyssa Ybarra v. Christus Spohn Hospital Beeville, Christus Spohn Health System Corporation, Raymond Lewandowski Jr., Children's Physician Services of South Texas D/B/A Driscoll Children's Genetic Center

Opinion

NUMBER 13-10-00574-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG ____________________________________________________________

GLORIA SALINAS YBARRA, FELIPE YBARRA JR., AND MELODY GARCIA, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS NEXT FRIENDS OR REPRESENTATIVES/HEIRS OF THE ESTATE OF ALYSSA YBARRA, DECEASED, Appellants,

v.

CHRISTUS SPOHN HOSPITAL BEEVILLE, CHRISTUS SPOHN HEALTH SYSTEM CORPORATION, RAYMOND LEWANDOWSKI JR., CHILDREN'S PHYSICIAN SERVICES OF SOUTH TEXAS D/B/A DRISCOLL CHILDREN'S GENETIC CENTER, Appellees. ____________________________________________________________

On appeal from 36th District Court of Bee County, Texas. ____________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Rodriguez, Benavides, and Perkes Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam On September 14, 2011, appellant filed a brief that was not in compliance with the

Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. The brief failed generally to comply with the Texas

Rules of Appellate Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1(k).

On October 27, 2011, the Clerk of the Court notified appellant that the brief failed to

comply with Rule 38.1 (k) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure because it does not

contain an appendix as required by Rule 38.1(k). See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1. Appellant

was directed to file an appendix in compliance with the Texas Rules of Appellate

Procedure within ten days of the date of the letter, and notified that if an appendix was not

filed, the Court may strike the brief, prohibit appellant from filing another, and proceed as

if appellant had failed to file a brief, under which circumstances the Court may affirm the

judgment or dismiss the appeal. See Id. 38.9(a), 42.3(b),(c). Appellant failed to

respond to the Court’s notice.

Accordingly, we strike appellant=s non-conforming brief and order the appeal

DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(a), 38.9(a),

42.3(b)(c).

PER CURIAM

Delivered and filed the 15th day of December, 2011.