                         NUMBER 13-12-00443-CV

                            COURT OF APPEALS

                  THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                     CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
____________________________________________________________

HECTOR RIVERA JR.,                                                          Appellant,

                                           v.

JONATHAN TREVINO,                                   Appellee.
____________________________________________________________

          On appeal from the County Court at Law No. 7
                   of Hidalgo County, Texas.
____________________________________________________________

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

      Appellant, Hector Rivera Jr. attempted to perfect an appeal from an order signed

on June 19, 2012, in cause number CL-12-0522-G. Upon review of the documents

before the Court, it appeared that there was no final, appealable judgment dated June 19,

2012. On July 17, 2012, 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 the notice, the appeal would be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

Appellant failed to respond to the Court’s notice.

        Additionally, on July 17, 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). See

TEX. R. APP. P. 9.5(e). 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. An amended

notice of appeal has not been filed.

        Upon review of the documents before the Court, it appears there is no final,

appealable judgment dated June 19, 2012. In terms of appellate jurisdiction, appellate

courts only have jurisdiction to review final judgments and certain interlocutory orders

identified by statute. Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001).

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

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

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

JURISDICTION. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a),(c).



                                                  PER CURIAM

Delivered and filed the
27th day of August, 2012.




                                             2
