Benny Wayne Stewart v. Herlinda Rodriguez, et al.--Appeal from 85th District Court of Brazos County

IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-96-270-CV

BENNY WAYNE STEWART,

Appellant

v.

HERLINDA RODRIGUEZ, ET AL.,

Appellees

From the 85th District Court

Brazos County, Texas

Trial Court # 44,060-85

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Benny Stewart, an inmate, attempts to appeal from an order dismissing in part his pro se in forma pauperis lawsuit against several people involved in his parole revocation hearings, Jennifer Slovacek, John Godfrey, Spencer Giles, and Herlinda Rodriguez. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. 14.001-.014 (Vernon Supp. 1997). The trial court dismissed all of the parties except Rodriguez. The record indicates that no final judgment has been issued with regard to Stewart's claims against Rodriguez. On December 6, we notified Stewart that his appeal was subject to dismissal See Tex. R. App. P. 60(a)(2), 83.

Absent a statute making an interlocutory order appealable, a final judgment is necessary to our jurisdiction. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. 51.012 (Vernon 1986); New York Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Sanchez, 799 S.W.2d 677, 678-79 (Tex. 1990). A final judgment is one disposing of all parties and all issues in the case. Baker v. Hansen, 679 S.W.2d 480, 481 (Tex. 1984). The trial court's dismissal did not dispose of all of the parties in the case; therefore, it is interlocutory. See Speer v. Stover, 711 S.W.2d 730, 734 (Tex. App. San Antonio 1986, no writ). Moreover, there is no statute authorizing an interlocutory appeal of the dismissal order in the instant case. Therefore, the dismissal order in the instant case is an interlocutory one for which there is no provision that allows it to be appealed in the absence of a final judgment.

The cause is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

PER CURIAM

Before Chief Justice Davis,

Justice Cummings, and

Justice Vance

Dismissed for want of jurisdiction

Opinion delivered and filed December 18, 1996

Do not publish