Ramon Donato Garcia v. Priscilla Zavala

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedJuly 28, 2011
Docket13-11-00069-CV
StatusPublished

This text of Ramon Donato Garcia v. Priscilla Zavala (Ramon Donato Garcia v. Priscilla Zavala) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Ramon Donato Garcia v. Priscilla Zavala, (Tex. Ct. App. 2011).

Opinion

NUMBER 13-11-00069-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG ____________________________________________________________

RAMON DONATO GARCIA, Appellant,

v.

PRISCILLA ZAVALA, Appellee. ____________________________________________________________

On appeal from the 444th District Court of Cameron County, Texas. ____________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Rodriguez and Garza Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

Appellant, Ramon Donato Garcia, filed an appeal from a judgment rendered

against him in favor of appellee, Priscilla Zavala. On May 25, 2011, the Clerk of this

Court notified appellant that the clerk's record in the above cause was originally due on

March 15, 2011, and that the deputy district clerk, Freddy Cardoza, 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.

On May 5, 2011, the Clerk of the Court notified appellant that he was delinquent in

remitting a $175.00 filing fee. The Clerk of this Court notified appellant that the appeal

was subject to dismissal if the filing fee was not paid within ten days from the date of

receipt of this letter. See id. 42.3(b), (c).

Appellant has failed to respond to this Court=s notices and has failed to pay the

filing fee. Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION.

See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(b), (c).

PER CURIAM

Delivered and filed the 28th day of July, 2011.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Ramon Donato Garcia v. Priscilla Zavala, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ramon-donato-garcia-v-priscilla-zavala-texapp-2011.