Opinion filed August 16, 2012

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals __________ No. 11-12-00181-CV __________ VICTOR R. GONZALES, Appellant V. STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 358th District Court Ector County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. D-25,991

MEMORANDUM OPINION Victor R. Gonzales has filed a pro se notice of appeal relating to an “ex parte withdrawal notification” authorizing the garnishment of his inmate trust account. Upon reviewing the documents filed in this court, we wrote appellant and informed him that it did not appear that a final, appealable order had been entered. We requested that appellant respond and show grounds to continue this appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3. Appellant has responded to our letter, but his response does not show grounds to continue this appeal. He asserts that he has had no meaningful opportunity to be heard to dispute the costs imposed against him.

Unless specifically authorized by statute, appeals may be taken only from final judgments. Tex. A & M Univ. Sys. v. Koseoglu, 233 S.W.3d 835, 840–41 (Tex. 2007); Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191 (Tex. 2001). A notice or order to withdraw funds is not a final, appealable order. See Harrell v. State, 286 S.W.3d 315, 316 n.1, 321 (Tex. 2009) (“withdrawal order” is actually a notification from the court, not an order); Ramirez v. State, 318 S.W.3d 906 (Tex. App.—Waco 2010, no pet.). The documents on file in this court show that the trial court has not acted on any post-notification motion, such as a motion to strike the order to withdraw inmate funds. An order ruling on such a motion would be appealable. See Harrell, 286 S.W.3d 315. No appealable order has been entered in this case.

Consequently, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction.

PER CURIAM

August 16, 2012 Panel consists of: Wright, C.J., McCall, J., and Kalenak, J.