NUMBER 13-10-00660-CV

                                 COURT OF APPEALS

                     THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                         CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________

LYDIA R. JEFFREY,                                                                     Appellant,

                                                             v.

CITY OF MISSION, TEXAS AND UNITED

STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING

AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT,                                                  Appellees.

____________________________________________________________

On “Order Granting United States Department of Housing and Urban Development’s Motion to Dismiss”

____________________________________________________________

                               MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Rodriguez and Benavides

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

Appellant, Lydia R. Jeffery, attempts to appeal an “Order Granting United States Department of Housing and Urban Development’s Motion to Dismiss” entered by the United States District Court Southern District of Texas McAllen Division on March 29, 2005.  Upon receipt of the notice of appeal, the Clerk of this Court notified Jeffery that it did not appear that this Court has jurisdiction, so that steps could be taken to correct the defect, if it could be done.  See Tex. R. App. P. 37.1, 42.3.  The Clerk further notified Jeffery that the appeal would be dismissed if the defect was not corrected after the expiration of ten days from receipt of the Court’s notice.  Appellant failed to respond to the Court’s notice.

            The Court, having fully reviewed and considered the documents herein, concludes that the order appealed from fails to invoke our appellate jurisdiction and is of the opinion that the cause should be dismissed.  In terms of appellate jurisdiction, each court of appeals has appellate jurisdiction of all civil cases within its district of which the district courts or county courts have jurisdiction when the amount in controversy or the judgment rendered exceeds $250, exclusive of interest and costs.  See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. §22.220 (Vernon 2004).  In this case, the order appealed from was not from a district or county court, rather it was an order issued by the United States Southern District Court.

The Court, having examined and fully considered the documents on file, is of the opinion that the appeal should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.  Accordingly, the appeal is hereby DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION.  See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a),(c).

                                                                                                            PER CURIAM

Delivered and filed the

31st day of March, 2011.