Marco A. Garza v. Elena v. Vetluzhskikh Garza

Opinion

                                       NUMBER 13-10-00319-CV

                                 COURT OF APPEALS

                     THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                         CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________

MARCO A. GARZA,                                                                APPELLANT,

                                                             v.

ELENA V. VETLUZHSKIKH GARZA,                                       APPELLEE.

                          On Appeal from the 389th District Court

                                       of Hidalgo County, Texas.

                               MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Rodriguez and Vela

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

Appellant, Marco A. Garza, appealed a judgment entered by the 389th District Court of Hidalgo County, Texas.  On June 9, 2010 and July 2, 2010, the Clerk of this Court notified appellant that the notice of appeal failed to comply with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.5(e) and 25.1(d)(2).  See Tex. R. App. P. 9.5(e), 25.1(d)(2).  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 13, 2010, 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.  To date, the defect has not been corrected.  See Tex. R. App. P.  42.3(b),(c). 

Additionally, on October 13, 2010, 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 id. 42.3(c).  Appellant has not responded to the notice from the Clerk or paid the $175.00 filing fee.  See Tex. R. App. P. 5, 12.1(b).

The Court, having considered the documents on file, appellant=s failure to correct these defects, and failure to pay the filing fee, is of the opinion that the appeal should be dismissed.  See id. 42.3(b),(c).  Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED for want of prosecution.

PER CURIAM

Delivered and filed the

18th day of November, 2010.