Mayra Lien Yanez v. Sharon Tandre Collier

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: January 26, 2012
• Docket: 13-11-00415-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

NUMBER 13-11-00415-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG ____________________________________________________________

MAYRA LIEN YANEZ, Appellant,

v.

SHARON TANDRE COLLIER, Appellee. ____________________________________________________________

On appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2 of Hidalgo County, Texas. ____________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Rodriguez, Benavides, and Perkes Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

This case is before the Court on appellee’s motion to dismiss. Appellant, Mayra

Lien Yanez, appealed a judgment entered by the County Court at Law No. 2 of Hidalgo

County, Texas. On July 11, 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 August 23, 2011, the

Clerk notified appellant that the defect had not been corrected and warned appellant that

the appeal would be dismissed if the defect was not cured within ten days. Appellant has

not responded to the notice from the Clerk or corrected the defect.

On October 13, 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). 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).

An appellate court may dismiss a civil appeal for want of prosecution or failure to

comply with a notice from the clerk requiring a response or other action within a specified

time. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b),(c). The Court, having considered appellee’s motion

to dismiss, the documents on file, and appellant=s failure to 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, appellee’s motion is GRANTED and the appeal is DISMISSED for want of

prosecution and failure to comply with a notice from the Court. See id.

PER CURIAM

Delivered and filed the 26th day of January, 2012.