NO. 12-05-00403-CV
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT
TYLER, TEXAS
JOSE B. DE LA CERDA, § APPEAL FROM THE 87TH
APPELLANT
V. § JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF
BOYD DISTRIBUTION CENTER
AND OLYMPIA LEAR TECH,
APPELLEES § ANDERSON COUNTY, TEXAS
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 the instant case was signed on December 6, 2005. On November 28, 2005, which was prior to the signing of the judgment, Appellant filed a notice of appeal that failed to contain the information required by Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 25.1(e), i.e., a certificate of service showing service on all parties to the trial court’s judgment.
On December 12, 2005, Appellant was notified pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 37.1 that the notice of appeal was defective for failure to comply with Rule 25.1(e). He was further notified that unless he filed an amended notice of appeal on or before January 11, 2006, the appeal would be referred to the court for dismissal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3.
On December 16, 2005, Appellant filed an amended notice of appeal. However, Appellant failed to correct the defect. Because Appellant has failed, after notice, to correct his defective notice of appeal, 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. 12-04-0004-CV, 2004 WL
252785, at *1 (Tex. App.–Feb. 11, 2004, pet. denied); Feist v. Hubert, 12-03-00442-CV, 2004 WL 252285, at *1 (Tex. App.–Tyler Feb. 11, 2004, pet. denied).
Opinion delivered January 18, 2006.
Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and DeVasto, J.
(PUBLISH)