Clay D. Sanders v. Elizabeth Karrick et al.Appeal from 259th District Court of Jones County (memorandum opinion per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Opinion filed October 3, 2013 In The Eleventh Court of Appeals __________ No. 11-13-00193-CV __________ CLAY D. SANDERS, Appellant V. ELIZABETH KARRICK ET AL., 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 purports to appeal from an August 9, 2012 order granting defendant s motion for summary judgment. In the other, Appellant states that he is appealing from an August 5, 2013 order granting defendant s motion for summary judgment. We notified Appellant by letter dated September 16, 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). The clerk s record reflects that there was no summary judgment entered in 2012 and that the summary judgment entered in this case on August 5, 2013, granted defendant Elizabeth Karrick s motion for summary judgment. The order granting Karrick s motion does not dispose of Appellant s claims against any other defendant. The record shows that at least one other defendant had been sued by Appellant. On November 2, 2011, Appellant had filed an amended original petition in which he added James Lane as a defendant. The record contains no judgment disposing of or severing Appellant s claims against Lane. Lane did not join in Karrick s motion for summary judgment in this cause, and the trial court s order granting Karrick s motion for summary judgment does not purport to dispose of Appellant s claims against Lane. Nor does the trial court s order appear to be final on its face. See McNally v. Guevara, 52 S.W.3d 195 (Tex. 2001); Lehmann, 39 S.W.3d at 192 93. 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 October 3, 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.
