Hector Virgilio Zamora and Irma Cantu De Zamora v. Valley Urological Clinic, R.G. Del Villar, M.D. and Mission Hospital, Inc.

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: November 27, 2002
• Docket: 13-02-00401-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

                                   NUMBER 13-02-401-CV

                             COURT OF APPEALS

                   THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                                CORPUS CHRISTI

____________________________________________________________________

HECTOR VIRGILIO ZAMORA AND

IRMA CANTU DE ZAMORA,                                                 Appellants,

                                                   v.

VALLEY UROLOGICAL CLINIC, R. G. DEL

VILLAR, M.D. AND MISSION HOSPITAL, INC.,                        Appellees.

____________________________________________________________________

                         On appeal from the 93rd District Court

                                  of Hidalgo County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________________

                                   O P I N I O N

                   Before Justices Dorsey, Rodriguez, and Castillo

                                       Opinion Per Curiam

Appellants, HECTOR VIRGILIO ZAMORA AND IRMA CANTU DE ZAMORA, perfected an appeal from a judgment entered by the 93rd District Court of Hidalgo County, Texas, in cause number C-891-00-B.  The clerk=s record was filed on July 15, 2002.  No reporter=s record was filed.   Appellants= brief was due on August 14, 2002. To date, no appellate brief has been received

When the appellant has failed to file a brief in the time prescribed, the Court may dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution, unless the appellant reasonably explains the failure and the appellee is not significantly injured by the appellant=s failure to timely file a brief.  Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a)(1).

On October 8, 2002, notice was given to all parties that this appeal was subject to dismissal pursuant to Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a)(1).  Appellants were given ten days to explain why the cause should not be dismissed for failure to file a brief.  To date, no response has been received.

The Court, having examined and fully considered the documents on file, appellants= failure to file a proper appellate brief, this Court=s notice, and appellants= failure to respond, is of the opinion that the appeal should be dismissed for want of prosecution.  The appeal is hereby DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION.

PER CURIAM

Do not publish.

Tex. R. App. P. 47.3.

Opinion delivered and filed

this the 27th day of November, 2002