Robert L. Clark v. Daniel D. Combs, Beto I Unit, John Doe 1, 2 & 3

Court of Appeals of Texas

Robert L. Clark v. Daniel D. Combs, Beto I Unit, John Doe 1, 2 & 3

DecidedDecember 16, 2009

Docket12-09-00372-CV

StatusPublished

This text of Robert L. Clark v. Daniel D. Combs, Beto I Unit, John Doe 1, 2 & 3 (Robert L. Clark v. Daniel D. Combs, Beto I Unit, John Doe 1, 2 & 3) 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

Robert L. Clark v. Daniel D. Combs, Beto I Unit, John Doe 1, 2 & 3, (Tex. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

NO. 12-09-00372-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS ROBERT L. CLARK, ' APPEAL FROM THE 349TH APPELLANT

V. ' JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF

DANIEL D. COMBS, BETO I UNIT, AND JOHN DOE 1, 2 & 3, ET AL., ' ANDERSON COUNTY, TEXAS APPELLEES MEMORANDUM OPINION PER CURIAM This pro se in forma pauperis appeal is being dismissed for failure to comply with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(c). The judgment in this case was signed on October 13, 2009. Appellant, Robert L. Clark, timely filed a notice of appeal that failed to contain the information required by Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 9.5 and 25.1(e), i.e., a certificate of service showing service on all parties to the trial court's judgment. On November 10, 2009, Clark was notified pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 37.1 that the notice of appeal was defective for failure to comply with rules 9.5 and 25.1(e). He was further notified that unless he filed an amended notice of appeal on or before December 10, 2009, the appeal would be referred to the court for dismissal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(c). The deadline for filing an amended notice of appeal has passed, and Clark has not corrected his defective notice of appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for failure to comply with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(c); Feist v. Berg, No. 12-04-00004-CV, 2004 WL 252785, at *1 (Tex. App.-Tyler Feb. 11, 2004, pet. denied); Feist v. Hubert, No. 12-03-00442-CV, 2004 WL 252285, at *1 (Tex. App.-Tyler Feb. 11, 2004, pet. denied). Opinion delivered December 16, 2009. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.

(PUBLISH)

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

NO. 12-09-00372-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS ROBERT L. CLARK, ' APPEAL FROM THE 349TH APPELLANT

V. ' JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF

DANIEL D. COMBS, BETO I UNIT, AND JOHN DOE 1, 2 & 3, ET AL., ' ANDERSON COUNTY, TEXAS APPELLEES MEMORANDUM OPINION PER CURIAM This pro se in forma pauperis appeal is being dismissed for failure to comply with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(c). The judgment in this case was signed on October 13, 2009. Appellant, Robert L. Clark, timely filed a notice of appeal that failed to contain the information required by Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 9.5 and 25.1(e), i.e., a certificate of service showing service on all parties to the trial court's judgment. On November 10, 2009, Clark was notified pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 37.1 that the notice of appeal was defective for failure to comply with rules 9.5 and 25.1(e). He was further notified that unless he filed an amended notice of appeal on or before December 10, 2009, the appeal would be referred to the court for dismissal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(c). The deadline for filing an amended notice of appeal has passed, and Clark has not corrected his defective notice of appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for failure to comply with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(c); Feist v. Berg, No. 12-04-00004-CV, 2004 WL 252785, at *1 (Tex. App.-Tyler Feb. 11, 2004, pet. denied); Feist v. Hubert, No. 12-03-00442-CV, 2004 WL 252285, at *1 (Tex. App.-Tyler Feb. 11, 2004, pet. denied). Opinion delivered December 16, 2009. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.

(PUBLISH)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Robert L. Clark v. Daniel D. Combs, Beto I Unit, John Doe 1, 2 & 3, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/robert-l-clark-v-daniel-d-combs-beto-i-unit-john-d-texapp-2009.