                           NUMBER 13-08-00270-CV

                           COURT OF APPEALS

                 THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                   CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
______________________________________________________________

CLIFF AND LETICIA McKELVY,                                               Appellants,

                                          v.

STATE FARM LLOYDS,
KINGDOM ASSOCIATES, INC.,
D/B/A SERVICEMASTER BAY AREA ,
AND ROBERT LLORENTE,                                Appellees.
_____________________________________________________________

               On Appeal from the 23rd District Court
                   of Matagorda County, Texas.
______________________________________________________________

                        MEMORANDUM OPINION

       Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Rodriguez and Garza
                     Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

      Appellants, Cliff and Leticia McKelvy, perfected an appeal from summary judgments

rendered against them in favor of appellees, State Farm Lloyds and Kingdom Associates,

Inc., d/b/a Servicemaster Bay Area and Robert Llorente. On August 12, 2008, the Clerk
of this Court notified appellant that the clerk's record in the above cause was originally due

on May 30, 2008, and that the district clerk, Becky Denn, had notified this Court that

appellant failed to make arrangements for payment of the clerk's record. The Clerk of this

Court notified appellants of this defect so that steps could be taken to correct the defect,

if it could be done. See TEX . R. APP. P. 37.3, 42.3(b),(c). Appellants were 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 prosecution. Appellants failed to respond to the

Court’s notice. State Farm Lloyds has now filed a motion to dismiss this appeal for want

of prosecution.

       The Court, having considered the documents on file and State Farm Lloyd’s motion

to dismiss, is of the opinion that the motion should be granted. See id. 37.3, 42.3(b),(c).

Accordingly, the motion to dismiss is GRANTED and the appeal is DISMISSED FOR

WANT OF PROSECUTION.

                                                  PER CURIAM

Memorandum Opinion delivered and
filed this the 6th day of November, 2008.




                                              2
