Graciela S. Robles v. Christus Spohn Hospital Kleberg A/K/A Christus Spohn Health System Corporation

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: March 20, 2008
• Docket: 13-07-00695-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

NUMBER 13-07-00695-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG ______________________________________________________________

GRACIELA S. ROBLES, Appellant,

v.

CHRISTUS SPOHN HOSPITAL KLEBERG A/K/A CHRISTUS SPOHN HEALTH SYSTEM CORPORATION, Appellee. _____________________________________________________________

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

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Yañez and Rodriguez Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

Appellant, Graciela Robles, pro se, perfected an appeal from a summary judgment

rendered against her in favor of appellee, Christus Spohn Hospital Kleberg a/k/a Christus

Spohn Health System Corporation (“Christus Spohn”). On January 4, 2008, and again on

February 4, 2008, the Clerk of this Court notified appellant that the clerk's record in the above cause was originally due on December 10, 2007, and that the Deputy District Clerk

of Kleberg County, Lula Belle Smart, had notified this Court that appellant failed to make

arrangements for payment of the clerk's record. The Clerk of this Court notified appellant

of this defect so that steps could be taken to correct the defect, if it could be done. See

TEX . R. APP. P. 37.3, 42.3(b),(c). Appellant was advised that, if the defect was not

corrected within ten days from the date of receipt of this notice, the appeal would be

dismissed for want of prosecution. Appellant failed to respond to the Court’s notices.

Christus Spohn has now filed a motion to dismiss this appeal for want of prosecution.

The Court, having considered the documents on file and Christus Spohn’s motion

to dismiss, is of the opinion that the motion should be granted. See id. 37.3, 42.3(b),(c).

Accordingly, the motion to dismiss is GRANTED and the appeal is DISMISSED for want

of prosecution.

PER CURIAM

Memorandum Opinion delivered and filed this the 20th day of March, 2008.