Jose B. De La Cerda v. Boyd Distribution Center and Olympia Clear Tech--Appeal from 87th District Court of Anderson County

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)