Jaime Garcia, D/B/A Rio Pilon Pit, Cynthia Garcia D/B/A Bravo Pit, Edmundo Ramos Tellez, Aurelia Garza Garcia, Andres De Jesus Olvera Muniz, Alfa De La Luz Hernandez Padron, and Francisco Javier Ruiz Gomez v. Hidalgo County Irrigation 6

Summarize Case

Related Cases

NUMBER 13-15-00370-CV COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG ____________________________________________________________ JAIME GARCIA, D/B/A RIO PILON PIT, CYNTHIA GARCIA D/B/A BRAVO PIT, EDMUNDO RAMOS TELLEZ, AURELIA GARZA GARCIA, ANDRES DE JESUS OLVERA MUNIZ, ALFA DE LA LUZ HERNANDEZ PADRON, AND FRANCISCO JAVIER RUIZ GOMEZ, Appellants, v. HIDALGO COUNTY IRRIGATION #6, Appellee. ____________________________________________________________ On appeal from the 398th District Court of Hidalgo County, Texas. ____________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Garza, Benavides, and Longoria Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam Appellants appealed a judgment entered by the 398th District Court of Hidalgo County, Texas. On August 13, 2015, the Clerk of this Court notified appellant that the notice of appeal failed to comply with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.5(e). See TEX. R. APP. P. 9.5(e). The Clerk directed appellant to file an amended notice of appeal with the district clerk's office and this Court within 15 days from the date of that notice. On September 30, 2015, 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. An appellate court may dismiss a civil appeal for want of prosecution or failure to comply with a notice from the clerk requiring a response or other action within a specified time. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b),(c). The Court, having considered the documents on file, and appellant’s failure to correct the defect, 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 and failure to comply with a notice from the Court. See id. PER CURIAM Delivered and filed the 19th day of November, 2015. 2