Claude L. Dailey, Jr. v. Patricia Ann Dailey ( 2011 )

COURT OF APPEALS
SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH
NO. 02-11-00187-CV
CLAUDE L. DAILEY, JR. APPELLANT
V.
PATRICIA ANN DAILEY APPELLEE
----------
FROM THE 324TH DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY
----------
MEMORANDUM OPINION1
----------
Appellant Claude L. Dailey, Jr. attempts to appeal the denial of his motion
to recuse the trial judge. Acting Presiding Judge of the Eighth Administrative
Judicial Region of Texas, Judge Donald Cosby, heard Appellant’s motion and
denied it on April 29, 2011. Appellant filed a notice of appeal, and on June 3,
2011, we notified the parties of our concern that this court lacks jurisdiction over
1
See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
this appeal because the “Order Denying Motion to Recuse” does not appear to
be a final judgment or an appealable interlocutory order. We also stated that the
appeal would be subject to dismissal for want of jurisdiction unless Appellant or
any party desiring to continue the appeal filed with the court, on or before June
13, 2011, a response showing grounds for continuing the appeal. No response
has been filed.
Generally, an appeal may be taken only from a final judgment or order. 2
An order denying a motion to recuse is not an appealable interlocutory order. 3
Specifically, rule 18a of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure provides that an order
denying a motion to recuse may be reviewed only “on appeal from the final
judgment.”4 Because the order from which Appellant attempts to appeal is not an
appealable interlocutory order, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction.5
PER CURIAM
PANEL: DAUPHINOT, GARDNER, and WALKER, JJ.
DELIVERED: July 21, 2011
2
Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001).
3
Hawkins v. Walker, 233 S.W.3d 380, 401 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2007,
pet. denied).
4
Tex. R. Civ. P. 18a(f); see Hawkins, 233 S.W.3d at 401.
5
See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a), 43.2(f).
2