COURT OF APPEALS
SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH
NO. 02-15-00153-CV
DONALD W. READ APPELLANT
V.
TIMOTHY VERBOSKI APPELLEE
----------
FROM THE 48TH DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY
TRIAL COURT NO. 048-275890-14
----------
MEMORANDUM OPINION1
----------
On May 5, 2015, we notified Appellant Donald W. Read, a pro se inmate,
of our concern that we lack jurisdiction over his appeal from an “Order Denying
Motion to Appoint Attorney Regarding These Civil Matters” because the order
does not appear to be a final judgment or an appealable interlocutory order. We
informed Read that the appeal may be dismissed for want of jurisdiction unless
1
See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
he or any party desiring to continue the appeal filed a response showing grounds
for continuing the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a), 44.3. Read filed a
response, but it does not show grounds for continuing the appeal.
Appellate courts have jurisdiction over appeals from final judgments and
from specific types of interlocutory orders designated by the legislature as
appealable. Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001); see
Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 51.014(a) (West 2015). A judgment is final
for purposes of appeal if it (1) actually disposes of all claims and parties or
(2) states with unmistakable clarity that it is a final judgment. Lehmann, 39
S.W.3d at 200.
The order that Read attempts to appeal is neither a final judgment nor an
appealable interlocutory order. Therefore, we dismiss this appeal for want of
jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(f).
PER CURIAM
PANEL: MEIER, GABRIEL, and SUDDERTH, JJ.
DELIVERED: June 11, 2015
2