Steven M. Gary v. Mary Roman, Et al. Appeal from 150th Judicial District Court of Bexar County (memorandum opinion per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas MEMORANDUM OPINION No. 04-15-00690-CV Steven M. GARY, Appellant v. Mary ROMAN, et al., Appellees From the 150th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2015-CI-01986 Honorable Laura Salinas, Judge Presiding PER CURIAM Sitting: Marialyn Barnard, Justice Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice Delivered and Filed: December 23, 2015 APPEAL DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION On November 2, 2015, appellant Steven M. Gary, who is pro se, filed a notice of appeal in this court stating that he “wishes to appeal the amicus curiae advisory to the court.” Our review of the appellate record in the appeal previously filed in this court, as well as the trial court’s docket sheet, suggests the “amicus curiae advisory” from which appellant seeks to appeal is neither a final, appealable judgment nor an appealable interlocutory order. Generally, an appeal may be taken only from a final judgment. Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 196 (Tex. 2001). A judgment is final for appellate purposes if it disposes of all 04-15-00690-CV pending parties and claims in the record. Id. There appears to be no final judgment in this case, and we have found no authority permitting an interlocutory appeal from an “amicus curiae advisory to the court.” See Texas A & M Univ. Sys. v. Koseoglu, 233 S.W.3d 835, 840 (Tex. 2007) (holding appellate courts have jurisdiction to consider interlocutory orders only if statute explicitly provides such jurisdiction). Because it appeared there is no final judgment in this case, we ordered appellant to file a written response in this court on or before December 7, 2015, showing cause why this appeal should not be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. We advised appellant that if he failed to satisfactorily respond within the time provided, the appeal would be dismissed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(c). Appellant has not responded to our order. Accordingly, we hold that at this time, there is no order or judgment from which appellant may prosecute an appeal. We therefore dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. See id. R. 42.3(a). PER CURIAM -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.
