Richard A. Dunsmore v. University of Texas, Et Al Appeal from 412th District Court of Brazoria County (memorandum opinion per curiam)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Appeal Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed August 16, 2016. In The Fourteenth Court of Appeals NO. 14-16-00131-CV RICHARD A. DUNSMORE, Appellant V. UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS, ET AL, Appellee On Appeal from the 412th District Court Brazoria County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 78057-I MEMORANDUM OPINION This is an attempted appeal from an order signed January 31, 2016, dismissing appellant’s claims against some but not all defendants. On February 2, 2016, the trial court signed a final judgment dismissing appellant’s claims against the remaining defendant. Appellant filed a notice of appeal from the final judgment; that appeal is pending in this court as No. 14-16-00166-CV. Generally, appeals may be taken only from final judgments. Lehmann v. Har Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001). The January 31, 2016, order is interlocutory. When orders do not dispose of all pending parties and claims, the orders remain interlocutory and unappealable until final judgment is entered unless a statutory exception applies. Bally Total Fitness Corp. v. Jackson, 53 S.W.3d 352, 352 (Tex. 2001); Jack B. Anglin Co., Inc. v. Tipps, 842 S.W.2d 266, 272 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). The final judgment replaced the interlocutory order. See Roccaforte v. Jefferson County, 341 S.W.3d 919, 924–25 (Tex. 2011); Webb v. Jorns, 488 S.W.2d 407, 408–09 (Tex. 1972). Appellant may raise issues about the January 31, 2016 order in the appeal from the February 2, 2016 final judgment (No. 14-1600166-CV). On July 26, 2016, notification was transmitted to the parties of this court’s intention to dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction unless appellant filed a response demonstrating grounds for continuing the appeal on or before August 8, 2016. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a). Appellant’s response fails to demonstrate that this court has jurisdiction over the appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED. PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Busby, Donovan, and Brown. 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.