Joseph Andre Davis v. Floyd Daniel Lopez Appeal from 245th District Court of Harris County (memorandum opinion per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Opinion issued October 20, 2015 In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-15-00356-CV ——————————— JOSEPH ANDRE DAVIS, Appellant V. FLOYD DANIEL LOPEZ, Appellee On Appeal from the 245th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Case No. 2014-58410 MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant, Joseph Andre Davis, has filed a notice of appeal attempting to appeal from the “interlocutory judgment of 245th District Court Judge Roy L. Moore on April 10, 2015 to set a trial date for Original Petition in Suit Affecting the Parent–Child Relationship and all adverse interlocutory rulings that merged into the judgment.” We dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. This Court has jurisdiction only over appeals from final judgments and those interlocutory orders specifically authorized by statute. See Bison Bldg. Materials, Ltd. v. Aldridge, 422 S.W.3d 582, 585 (Tex. 2012); CMH Homes v. Perez, 340 S.W.3d 444, 447–48 (Tex. 2011); Lehmann v. Har–Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001); see also TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 51.014 (West 2015) (authorizing appeals from certain interlocutory orders). The clerk’s record in this appeal has not been filed and Davis did not attach any orders to his notice of appeal. However, to the extent that the trial court entered the order as claimed in Davis’s notice of appeal, the order is not a final judgment and an interlocutory appeal of the order is not authorized by statute. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 51.014; Bison Bldg. Materials, 422 S.W.3d at 585. On August 6, 2015, the Clerk of this Court notified Davis that this Court might dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction unless Davis timely filed a response demonstrating this Court’s jurisdiction over the appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a), 43.2(f). Davis filed a response, but failed to demonstrate that this Court has jurisdiction over this appeal. Because Davis seeks to appeal an interlocutory order not authorized by statute, we lack jurisdiction over this appeal. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal 2 for want of jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a), 43.2(f). We dismiss all pending motions as moot. PER CURIAM Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Bland and Huddle. 3
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.
