Colin O'Kroley v. Ray Pringle, Byron Brown, and Pringle Management Company

Opinion filed March 8, 2012

                                                                       In The

  Eleventh Court of Appeals

                                                                   __________

                                                         No. 11-12-00056-CV

                                                    __________

                                    COLIN O’KROLEY, Appellant

                                                             V.

                            RAY PRINGLE, BYRON BROWN, AND

                   PRINGLE MANAGEMENT COMPANY, Appellees

                                   On Appeal from the 244th District Court

                                                             Ector County, Texas

                                                  Trial Court Cause No. C-130,005

                                            M E M O R A N D U M   O P I N I O N

On February 9, 2012, Colin O’Kroley filed in this court a pro se “Request for appeal of Partial Summary Judgment Order & Decision made 8/11/2011 with simultaneous request for continuance OR (alternatively) motions for recusal of Judge Robert Moore and rehearing of partial summary judgment in District Court with simultaneous request for continuance in lieu of appeal (if possible).”  We notified the parties by letter dated February 14, 2012, that it did not appear to this court that a final appealable order had been entered by the trial court, and we requested that appellant respond by February 29, 2012, showing grounds to continue this appeal.  Appellant filed a response as requested. However, in his response, appellant again requests a continuance and suggests that, “if the problem is that the order is not ‘final,’” a final order “is presumably forthcoming and will be appealable.”

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).  The summary judgment from which appellant attempts to appeal does not dispose of all parties and all claims, nor does it contain any language indicating that it is final or appealable.  See Lehmann, 39 S.W.3d 191. Therefore, it is not a final appealable judgment, and we have no jurisdiction to entertain this appeal.  Because appellant has not shown grounds to continue this appeal and because a final judgment disposing of all claims and all parties has not been entered, we dismiss this appeal.  See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3.  

            Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.  

PER CURIAM

March 8, 2012

Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

McCall, J., and Kalenak, J.