the City of Bay City, Texas v. Vaughan Dierlam and Raul Murillo and Jose Murillo

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: November 3, 2011
• Docket: 13-11-00298-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

NUMBER 13-11-00298-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG ____________________________________________________________

THE CITY OF BAY CITY, TEXAS, Appellant,

v.

VAUGHAN DIERLAM AND RAUL MURILLO AND JOSE MURILLO, Appellees. ____________________________________________________________

On appeal from the 23rd District Court of Matagorda County, Texas. ____________________________________________________________

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

Appellant, City of Bay City, Texas, filed an appeal from an order entered by the

23rd District Court of Matagorda County, Texas, in cause number 07-H-0547-C. Upon

review of the documents before the Court, it appeared that the order from which this

appeal was taken was not a final appealable order. 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. 37.1, 42.3. Appellant has filed a motion to dismiss the

appeal indicating the order from which this appeal is taken is not a final appealable order.

Appellant requests that this Court dismiss the appeal.

The Court, having considered the documents on file and appellant=s motion to

dismiss the appeal, is of the opinion that the motion should be granted. See TEX. R. APP.

P. 42.1(a). Appellant=s motion to dismiss is granted, and the appeal is hereby

DISMISSED. Costs will be taxed against appellant. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(d) ("Absent

agreement of the parties, the court will tax costs against the appellant."). Having

dismissed the appeal at appellant=s request, no motion for rehearing will be entertained,

and our mandate will issue forthwith.

PER CURIAM

Delivered and filed the 3rd day of November, 2011.