Vidal Conde v. Global Spectrum

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: July 14, 2011
• Docket: 13-11-00165-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

                                       NUMBER 13-11-00165-CV

                                 COURT OF APPEALS

                     THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                         CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________

VIDAL CONDE,                                                                        APPELLANT,

                                                             v.

GLOBAL SPECTRUM,                                                               APPELLEE.

                    On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 5

                                       of Hidalgo County, Texas.

                               MEMORANDUM OPINION

                           Before Justices Benavides, Vela, and Perkes

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

Appellant, Vidal Conde, appealed a judgment entered by the County Court at Law No. 5 of Nueces County, Texas.  On March 28, 2011, the Clerk of this Court notified appellant that the notice of appeal was not in compliance with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 25.1(d)(2), 25.1(d)(7) and 25.1(e).  See Tex. R. App. P. 25.1.  Appellant was advised to file an amended notice of appeal with the district clerk and forward a copy to the Court.  In response, appellant requested an extension of time to comply which was granted by the Court until April 22, 2011.

The Court did not receive an amended notice of appeal and on May 18, 2011, the Clerk of this Court again notified appellant that the notice of appeal failed to comply with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 25.1(d)(2), 25.1(d)(7) and 25.1(e).  See id. 25.1.  The Clerk notified appellant that the defects had not been corrected and warned appellant that the appeal would be dismissed if the defects were not cured within ten days.  Appellant failed to respond to the Court=s notice.

The Court, having considered the documents on file and appellant=s failure to correct these defects, 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 the

14th day of July, 2011