George Albert Hall v. Renal Care Group Texas, Inc.--Appeal from 87th District Court of Anderson County

MARY'S OPINION HEADING NO. 12-03-00343-CV
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT
TYLER, TEXAS

GEORGE ALBERT HALL,

 
APPEAL FROM THE 87TH

APPELLANT

 

V.

 
JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF

RENAL CARE GROUP TEXAS, INC.,

APPELLEE

 
ANDERSON COUNTY, TEXASMEMORANDUM OPINION
PER CURIAM

This pro se in forma pauperis appeal is being dismissed for failure to comply with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(c). The judgment in this case was signed on August 11, 2003. On September 5, 2003, Appellant filed a notice of appeal which failed to contain the information required by Rule 25.1 (e), i.e., a certificate of service showing service on all parties to the trial court's judgment.

On October 20, 2003, Appellant was notified pursuant to Tex. R. App. P. 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 November 4, 2003, the appeal would be referred to the Court for dismissal. Tex. R. App. P. 42.3.

On November 7, 2003, Appellant filed a motion for an extension of time to file an amended notice of appeal, but failed to comply with Tex. R. App. P. 9.5(e). On that same date, Appellant was notified that his motion fails to comply with Rule 9.5(e) and was asked to forward proof of service on or before November 17, 2003. The deadlines stated in the October 20 and November 17 notices have passed, and Appellant has neither filed an amended notice of appeal nor forwarded proof of service of his motion for extension of time. Therefore, we take no action on Appellant's motion for extension of time, and the appeal is dismissed for failure to comply with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(c).

Opinion delivered November 26, 2003.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and DeVasto, J.

 
(PUBLISH)