                             NUMBER 13-12-00419-CV

                             COURT OF APPEALS

                   THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                     CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
____________________________________________________________

JOSE L. SOTO,                                                                Appellant,

                                            v.

CITY OF EDINBURG, TEXAS,                            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, Jose L. Soto, attempted to perfect an appeal from an order entered by

the County Court at Law No. 7 of Hidalgo County, Texas, in cause no. CL-05-2304-G.

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. Appellant failed to respond to the Court=s notice.

       Additionally, 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. To date, the defect has not been

corrected.

       An appellate court may dismiss a civil appeal for 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(c). The Court, having considered the documents on file, and appellant’s

failure to correct the defects, is of the opinion that the appeal should be dismissed. See

id. 37.3, 42.3(a),(c). Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED for want of jurisdiction and

failure to comply with a notice from the Court. See id.



                                                        PER CURIAM

Delivered and filed the
23rd day of August, 2012.




                                             2
