Charles Ray Mason v. Arthur J. Wood, Gary E. Hunter, Brenda Spitaleri, Patricia A. Strobl, Marcial J. Foisie Jr., Bridgette D. Charlie, Ramona E. Jordan, and Cynthia Wood ( 2020 )

In The
Court of Appeals
Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
__________________
NO. 09-19-00434-CV
__________________
CHARLES RAY MASON, Appellant
V.
ARTHUR J. WOOD, GARY E. HUNTER, BRENDA SPITALERI,
PATRICIA A. STROBL, MARCIAL J. FOISIE JR., BRIDGETTE D.
CHARLIE, RAMONA E. JORDAN, AND CYNTHIA WOOD, Appellees
__________________________________________________________________
On Appeal from the 411th District Court
Polk County, Texas
Trial Cause No. CIV24101
__________________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Charles Ray Mason filed a notice of appeal from the trial court’s order
denying his motion for entry of a judgment nunc pro tunc. We questioned our
jurisdiction and notified the parties that the appeal would be dismissed for want of
jurisdiction unless we received a response establishing our jurisdiction. Mason filed
a response, but he failed to demonstrate that this Court has jurisdiction.
1
This Court’s appellate jurisdiction is limited to appeals from final judgments
and such interlocutory orders as the legislature has deemed appealable. See Tex. Civ.
Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 51.014; Shadowbrook Apartments v. Abu-Ahmad, 783
S.W.2d 210, 211 (Tex. 1990) (holding that the denial of a motion for judgment nunc
pro tunc is not a final, appealable order); North East Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Aldridge,
400 S.W.2d 893, 895 (Tex. 1966) (holding that appeal ordinarily may be taken only
from a final judgment). The trial court’s order denying Mason’s motion for judgment
nunc pro tunc is not a final, appealable order. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann.
§ 51.014; Shadowbrook Apartments, 783 S.W.2d at 211. Accordingly, we dismiss
the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
APPEAL DISMISSED.
PER CURIAM
Submitted on January 15, 2020
Opinion Delivered January 16, 2020
Before Kreger, Horton, and Johnson, JJ.
2