|
|
|
|
Opinion filed March 23, 2006
In The
Eleventh Court of Appeals
____________
No. 11-05-00045-CV
__________
IVO NABELEK, Appellant
V.
GERALD GARRETT ET AL, Appellees
On Appeal from the 61st District Court
Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 2004-44590
M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
Ivo Nabelek originally sued the defendants in Trial Court Cause No. 01-37615. The trial court dismissed that cause of action, and appellant appealed. In a memorandum opinion, the Fourteenth Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court=s dismissal; and the Texas Supreme Court dismissed Nabelek=s petition for review. Nabelek v. Garrett, 2003 WL 1738392 (Tex. App.CHouston [14th Dist.] 2003, pet. dism=d). In August of 2004, Nabelek filed a pro se petition for bill of review alleging that the trial court erroneously dismissed his claims pursuant to Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. '' 14.001-.006 (Vernon 2002) and attacking the Fourteenth Court=s opinion. The trial court denied Nabelek=s petition, and Nabelek has perfected this appeal. We affirm.
While Nabelek named AGerald Garrett et al@ in the style of his petition, he did not name, identify, or complain of any specific defendants in the body of his petition. The record does not reflect that anyone was served with the petition. Moreover, the petition does not state a ground for relief by bill of review. King Ranch, Inc. v. Chapman, 118 S.W.3d 742 (Tex. 2003); Tice v. City of Pasadena, 767 S.W.2d 700 (Tex. 1989)(orig. proceeding); Transworld Fin. Servs. Corp. v. Briscoe, 722 S.W.2d 407 (Tex. 1987); Montgomery v. Kennedy, 669 S.W.2d 309 (Tex. 1984); Baker v. Goldsmith, 582 S.W.2d 404 (Tex. 1979); Petro‑Chemical Transp., Inc. v. Carroll, 514 S.W.2d 240 (Tex. 1974); Alexander v. Hagedorn, 226 S.W.2d 996 (Tex. 1950). All of Nabelek=s contentions in this appeal have been considered, and each is overruled.
The order of the trial court is affirmed.
PER CURIAM
March 23, 2006
Panel consists of: Wright, C.J., and
McCall, J., and Strange, J.