                             NUMBER 13-15-00130-CV

                            COURT OF APPEALS

                  THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                     CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
____________________________________________________________

CHRIS TRUAX,                                                                 Appellant,

                                            v.

KUSTOM RIDZ,                                        Appellee.
____________________________________________________________

           On appeal from the County Court at Law No. 5
                    of Nueces County, Texas.
____________________________________________________________

                         MEMORANDUM OPINION
   Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Rodriguez and Longoria
                  Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

       Appellant, Chris Truax, attempted to perfect an appeal from an order entered by

the County Court at Law No. 5 of Nueces County, Texas, in cause no. 2014CCV-61232-

5. Upon review of the documents before the Court, it appeared that the order from which

this appeal was taken was not a final appealable order. The Clerk of this Court notified

appellant of this defect so that steps could be taken to correct the defect, if it could be
done. See TEX. R. APP. P. 37.1, 42.3. Appellant was advised that, if the defect was not

corrected within ten days from the date of receipt of this notice, the appeal would be

dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

       The notice was sent to appellant's last known forwarding address; however, the

notice was returned as not deliverable and unable to forward.         The Nueces County

District Clerk has sent other correspondence to appellant at the same address, which has

also been returned to sender.

       Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.1(b) requires unrepresented parties to sign

any document filed and "give the party's mailing address, telephone number, and fax

number, if any, and email address." See TEX. R. APP. P. 9.1(b). Appellant has neither

provided this court with a forwarding address nor taken any other action to prosecute this

appeal.

       The Court, having considered the documents on file and appellant's failure to

correct the defect in this matter, is of the opinion that the appeal should be dismissed for

want of jurisdiction. See id. Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED FOR WANT OF

JURISDICTION. See id. R. 42.3(a), (c).

                                                 PER CURIAM

Delivered and filed the
14th day of May, 2015.




                                             2
