Arturo Hernandez v. Eddie C. Williams, Doctor David Potter, and John Wilson, P.A.--Appeal from 89th District Court of Wichita County
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH NO. 2-09-220-CV ARTURO HERNANDEZ APPELLANT V. EDDIE C. WILLIAMS, DOCTOR DAVID POTTER, AND JOHN WILSON, P.A. APPELLEES -----------FROM THE 89TH DISTRICT COURT OF WICHITA COUNTY ------------ MEMORANDUM OPINION 1 -----------Arturo Hernandez filed a notice of appeal from a June 17, 2009 order denying his Motion For Appointment of Counsel. It appears that the trial court has not signed a final judgment or appealable interlocutory order. On July 23, 2009, we notified Appellant that unless he or any other party desiring to continue the appeal filed a response by August 3, 2009, showing grounds for 1 ¦ See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4. continuing the appeal, we would dismiss the appeal. Hernandez filed a response, but the response does not raise any grounds for continuing the appeal. A party may appeal only from a final judgment or an interlocutory order specifically made appealable by statute or rule. Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 & n.12 (Tex. 2001); see, e.g.,Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 51.014 (Vernon Supp. 2008) (listing appealable interlocutory orders). Because the trial court has not signed a final judgment or appealable interlocutory order, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a), 43.2(f). PER CURIAM PANEL: GARDNER, WALKER, and MCCOY, JJ. DELIVERED: August 20, 2009 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.
