Eduardo Reyna, Individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Elva Reyna, and for and on Behalf of All of Those Entitled to Recover for the Wrongful Death of Elva Reyna, Under the Texas Wrongful Death Act v. Jesus Rodriguez-Aguero, M.D.






NUMBER 13-04-565-CV


COURT OF APPEALS


THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS


CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

___________________________________________________________________


EDUARDO REYNA, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS

PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE

OF ELVA REYNA, DECEASED, ET AL.,                               Appellants,


v.


JESUS RODRIGUZ-AGUERO, M.D.,                                      Appellee.

___________________________________________________________________


On appeal from the 92nd District Court

of Hidalgo County, Texas

___________________________________________________________________


MEMORANDUM OPINION


Before Justices Hinojosa, Yañez, and Garza

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam


         Appellants, EDUARDO REYNA, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF ELVA REYNA, DECEASED, ET AL., attempted to perfect an appeal from a judgment entered by the 92nd District Court of Hidalgo County, Texas, in cause number C-352-03-A. Judgment in this cause was signed on June 11, 2004. A timely motion for new trial was filed on July 8, 2004. Pursuant to Tex. R. App. P. 26.1, appellants’ notice of appeal was due on September 9, 2004, but was not filed until September 24, 2004.

         Notice of this defect was given so that steps could be taken to correct the defect, if it could be done. Appellants were advised that, if the defect was not corrected within ten days from the date of receipt of this Court’s letter, the appeal would be dismissed. To date, no response has been received from appellants. Appellee has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal.

         The Court, having examined and fully considered the documents on file, appellants’ failure to timely perfect their appeal, appellants’ failure to respond to this Court’s notice, and appellee’s motion to dismiss the appeal, is of the opinion that the appeal should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Appellee’s motion to dismiss the appeal is GRANTED, and the appeal is hereby DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION.

                                                               PER CURIAM



Memorandum Opinion delivered and filed this

the 24th day of March, 2005.