Clay D. Sanders v. Elizabeth Karrick, James Lane, and John KarrickAppeal from 259th District Court of Jones County (memorandum opinion per curiam)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Opinion filed June 6, 2013 In The Eleventh Court of Appeals __________ No. 11-13-00154-CV __________ CLAY D. SANDERS, Appellant V. ELIZABETH KARRICK, JAMES LANE, AND JOHN KARRICK, Appellees On Appeal from the 259th District Court Jones County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 022183 MEMORANDUM OPINION Clay D. Sanders, Appellant, has filed two pro se notices of appeal in this cause. In one, he appeals the trial court s April 25, 2013 order denying his motion requesting recusal or disqualification of the trial judge. In the other, Appellant states that he is appealing from an August 9, 2012 order granting summary judgment, which, according to his notice of appeal, he has yet to receive. We notified Appellant by letter dated May 13, 2013, 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 file a response showing grounds to continue this appeal. Appellant filed a response; however, he has not shown appropriate grounds to continue. 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). According to documentation from the district clerk that was filed in this court on May 13, 2013, the trial court has not signed a summary judgment in this cause. Furthermore, the order denying Appellant s motion for recusal or disqualification of the trial judge is not final and appealable at this time. See TEX. R. CIV. P. 18a(j). Because no final, appealable order has been entered in this cause, we lack jurisdiction and dismiss this appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. PER CURIAM June 6, 2013 Panel consists of: Wright, C.J., McCall, J., and Willson, 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.