                             NUMBER 13-07-00695-CV

                            COURT OF APPEALS

                  THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                    CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
______________________________________________________________

GRACIELA S. ROBLES,                                                          Appellant,

                                            v.

CHRISTUS SPOHN HOSPITAL KLEBERG A/K/A
CHRISTUS SPOHN HEALTH SYSTEM CORPORATION,            Appellee.
_____________________________________________________________

             On Appeal from the 105th District Court
                    of Kleberg County, Texas.
______________________________________________________________

                         MEMORANDUM OPINION

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

      Appellant, Graciela Robles, pro se, perfected an appeal from a summary judgment

rendered against her in favor of appellee, Christus Spohn Hospital Kleberg a/k/a Christus

Spohn Health System Corporation (“Christus Spohn”). On January 4, 2008, and again on

February 4, 2008, the Clerk of this Court notified appellant that the clerk's record in the
above cause was originally due on December 10, 2007, and that the Deputy District Clerk

of Kleberg County, Lula Belle Smart, had notified this Court that appellant failed to make

arrangements for payment of the clerk's record. 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. 37.3, 42.3(b),(c).   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 prosecution. Appellant failed to respond to the Court’s notices.

Christus Spohn has now filed a motion to dismiss this appeal for want of prosecution.

       The Court, having considered the documents on file and Christus Spohn’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 20th day of March, 2008.




                                              2
