                          NUMBER 13-12-00621-CV

                             COURT OF APPEALS

                   THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                      CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
____________________________________________________________

ROSALVA RICO AS NEXT FRIEND OF
J. E. SALINAS RICO AND A. C. SALINAS,                                          Appellant,

                                             v.

OSCAR SALINAS D/BA DEL INN SUITES
AND FIRST NATIONAL BANK,                           Appellees.
____________________________________________________________

             On appeal from the 389th District Court
                   of Hidalgo County, Texas.
____________________________________________________________

                          MEMORANDUM OPINION
               Before Justices Garza, Benavides, and Perkes
                    Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

       Appellant, Rosalva Rico as next friend of J.E. Salinas Rico and A.C. Salinas,

appealed a judgment entered by the 389th District Court of Hidalgo County, Texas. On

October 18, 2012, the Clerk of this Court notified appellant that the notice of appeal failed
to comply with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.5(e)(3) and 25.1(d)(2). See TEX. R.

APP. P. 9.5(e)(3) and 25.1(d)(2). The Clerk directed appellant to file an amended notice

of appeal with the district clerk's office within 30 days from the date of that notice. On

February 7, 2013, the Clerk notified appellant that the defects had not been corrected and

warned appellant that the appeal would be dismissed if the defects were not cured within

ten days. Appellant has not responded to the notices from the Clerk or corrected the

defects.

       An appellate court may dismiss a civil appeal for want of prosecution or failure to

comply with a notice from the clerk requiring a response or other action within a specified

time. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b),(c). The Court, having considered the documents on

file, and appellant’s failure to correct the defect, is of the opinion that the appeal should be

dismissed.    See id. 37.3, 42.3(b),(c).    Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED FOR

WANT OF PROSECUTION and failure to comply with a notice from the Court. See id.




                                                           PER CURIAM

Delivered and filed the
7th day of March, 2013.




                                               2
