Court Opinion

ID: 3088965
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-10-16 03:36:37.120984+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:40:42.654191
License: Public Domain

NUMBER 13-13-00228-CV

                             COURT OF APPEALS

                   THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                      CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
____________________________________________________________

JUAN RAMOS,                                                                    Appellant,

                                             v.

CITY OF SAN BENITO, TEXAS,                          Appellee.
____________________________________________________________

             On appeal from the 107th District Court
                  of Cameron County, Texas.
____________________________________________________________

                          MEMORANDUM OPINION
       Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Garza and Perkes
                   Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

       Appellant, Juan Ramos attempted to perfect an appeal from an order signed on

January 28, 2013, in cause no. 2011-DCL-01169-A. Upon review of the documents

before the Court, it appeared that there was no appealable order dated January 28, 2013.

On May 1, 2013, 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.

       The Cameron County Clerk’s Office has informed this Court that no order was

entered on January 28, 2013. 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 defect 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
13th day of June, 2013.

                                             2