Ex parte M.B. Appeal from 355th District Court of Hood County (memorandum opinion per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH NO. 02-17-00070-CV EX PARTE M.B. ---------FROM THE 355TH DISTRICT COURT OF HOOD COUNTY TRIAL COURT NO. C2016374 ---------- MEMORANDUM OPINION1 ---------On February 27, 2017, we received a docketing statement from Appellant M.B., which we treated as a notice of appeal.2 After we received the clerk’s record, we noted that Appellant was attempting to appeal from the trial court’s 1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4. 2 In the docketing statement, Appellant noted that he had mailed a notice of appeal to the trial court clerk “about 3 or 4 weeks ago”; however, the trial court clerk informed this court that she had not received a notice of appeal in this case. Because we are holding that Appellant is attempting to appeal a nonappealable interlocutory order, the timeliness of his notice of appeal is mooted. January 13, 2017 order denying a hearing on his “Motion for Bench Warrant or in the Alternative Motion for Hearing by Conference Call.” On May 16, 2017, we sent a letter to Appellant, expressing our concern that we may not have jurisdiction over this appeal because it does not appear to be from a final judgment or appealable interlocutory order. See Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001) (explaining that “the general rule, with a few mostly statutory exceptions, is that an appeal may be taken only from a final judgment”). We stated that unless Appellant or any party desiring to continue the appeal filed a response showing grounds for continuing the appeal by May 26, 2017, the appeal could be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a), 44.3. Appellant filed a response, which does not show grounds for continuing the appeal. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a), 43.2(f). PER CURIAM PANEL: WALKER, MEIER, and GABRIEL, JJ. DELIVERED: June 29, 2017 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.
