Terry Knutson v. The Ridge at Tyler--Appeal from County Court of Smith County

NO. 12-06-00318-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

TERRY KNUTSON, APPEAL FROM THE

APPELLANT

V. COUNTY COURT OF

THE RIDGE AT TYLER,

APPELLEE SMITH 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 August 16, 2006. Thereafter, on August 31, 2006, Appellant filed a notice of appeal that failed to contain the information required by Rule 9.5, i.e., a certificate of service showing service on all parties to the trial court s judgment.

On September 6, 2006, 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 9.5. He was further notified that unless he filed an amended notice of appeal on or before October 6, 2006, the appeal would be referred to the court for dismissal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3.

Moreover, pursuant to Rule 32.1, Appellant s docketing statement was due to have been filed at the time the appeal was perfected, i.e., August 31, 2006. See Tex. R. App. P. 32.1. On September 6, 2006, this Court notified Appellant that he should file a docketing statement immediately if he had not already done so.

Because Appellant did not file the docketing statement as requested in our September 6, 2006 letter, this Court issued a second notice on September 22, 2006 advising Appellant that the docketing statement was past due. The notice further provided that unless the docketing statement was filed on or before October 2, 2006, the appeal would be presented for dismissal in accordance with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.3.

On September 18, 2006, Appellant filed a response to this Court s notices regarding his defective notice of appeal and his failure to file a docketing statement. In his response, Appellant explained that neither a certificate of service nor a docketing statement is necessary in this appeal. He also requested that this Court withdraw its September 6 and September 22, 2006 notices and allow the appeal to proceed. However, Appellant made no legal argument supporting his position and cited no rule of appellate procedure or other law that authorizes the granting of the requested. relief.

Because Appellant has failed, after notice, to comply with Rules 9.5 and 32.1, his motion to withdraw our September 6 and September 22, 2006 notices is overruled, and the appeal is dismissed. SeeTex. R. App. P. 42.3(c).

Opinion delivered October 11, 2006.

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

(PUBLISH)