                            NUMBER 13-19-00370-CV

                            COURT OF APPEALS

                  THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                     CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
____________________________________________________________

TERESA A. JOHNSON,                                                         Appellant,

                                          V.

SUNTRUST BANK D/B/A LIGHTSTREAM,                    Appellee.
____________________________________________________________

             On appeal from the 370th District Court
                   of Hidalgo County, Texas.
____________________________________________________________

                       MEMORANDUM OPINION
             Before Justices Benavides, Longoria, and Perkes
               Memorandum Opinion by Justice Benavides

      Appellant Teresa A. Johnson, proceeding pro se, attempted to perfect an appeal

from trial court cause number C-2122-19-G in the 370th District Court of Hidalgo County,

Texas. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

      Generally, appellate courts have jurisdiction only over appeals from final

judgments. See City of Watauga v. Gordon, 434 S.W.3d 586, 588 (Tex. 2014); Lehmann
v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001).           Further, appellate courts have

jurisdiction to consider appeals of interlocutory orders only if a statute explicitly provides

for such an appeal. Tex. A & M Univ. Sys. v. Koseoglu, 233 S.W.3d 835, 840 (Tex.

2007); see City of Watauga, 434 S.W.3d at 588.

       Appellant’s notice of appeal states that she wishes to appeal “the Citation served

on July 13, 2019.” On August 2, 2019, the Clerk of this Court notified appellant that it

appeared that there was no final, appealable order so that steps could be taken to correct

this defect, if it could be done. See TEX. R. APP. P. 37.1, 42.3(a). Appellant was advised

that the appeal would be dismissed if the defect was not corrected within ten days from

the date of receipt of this notice.    Appellant did not correct the defect or otherwise

respond to this Court’s notice.

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

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

want of jurisdiction. Accordingly, we DISMISS the appeal for want of jurisdiction. See

id. R. 37.1, 42.3(a),(c).

                                                                 GINA M. BENAVIDES,
                                                                 Justice
Delivered and filed the
12th day of September, 2019.




                                              2
