Colin O'Kroley v. Ray Pringle, Byron Brown, and Pringle Management Company--Appeal from 244th District Court of Ector County (per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
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 MEMORANDUM OPINION 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. 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
