Timothy Ray Grant v. Andrea Elease Myers
This text of Timothy Ray Grant v. Andrea Elease Myers (Timothy Ray Grant v. Andrea Elease Myers) 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.
Opinion
NUMBER 13-16-00338-CV
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG ____________________________________________________________
TIMOTHY RAY GRANT, Appellant,
v.
ANDREA ELEASE MYERS, Appellee. ____________________________________________________________
On Appeal from the 329th District Court of Wharton County, Texas. ____________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Garza and Longoria Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam
Appellant, Timothy Ray Grant, appealed a judgment entered by the 329th District
Court of Wharton County, Texas. On June 27, 2016, 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)(4). See TEX. R. APP. P. 9.5(e), 25.1(d)(4). 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 8, 2016, 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 July 28, 2016, 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
$205.00 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 $205.00 filing fee. See TEX. R. APP. P. 5, 12.1(b).
The Court, having considered 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, the appeal is DISMISSED FOR
WANT OF PROSECUTION.
PER CURIAM
Delivered and filed this 2nd day of September, 2016.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Timothy Ray Grant v. Andrea Elease Myers, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/timothy-ray-grant-v-andrea-elease-myers-texapp-2016.