I)ISMISS; Opinion flied October 9, 2012
In The
Qnurt nf ApirtIs
Fjffjx 1itrirt nf xzu at Ia1ta
No. 05-12-01006-CV
RAYMOND IIENSHAW, Appellant
V.
TEXAS WORKFORCE COMMISSION CIVIL RIGHTS DIVISION, Appellee
-
On Appeal from the 59th .Judicial I)istrict Court
Grayson County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 08-0797-059
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Chief Justice Wright and justices Francis and Lang-Miers
Opinion By Chief Justice Wright
By letter dated July 24. 2012, the Court questioned its jurisdiction over this appeal.
Specifically, it appears there is no final judgment. We directed appellant to file ajurisdictional brief
within ten days explaining how the Court hasjurisdiction and cautioned him that failure to do so may
result in dismissal of his appeal without further notice. As of today’s date, appellant has not filed
a jurisdictional brief.
Except in circumstances not applicable here, this Court has jurisdiction only over final
judgments. See Lehman,? v. liar-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191. 195 (Tex. 2001). A final judgment is
one that disposes of all pending parties and claims. Id. In its second amended petition, appellee
sought actual and punitive damages, attorney’s fees, and a permanent injunction for appellant’s
alleged housing discrimination practices. See’ lEN. PROP. CODE ANN. § 301.001 (West 2007).
Appeflee sought summary judgment on all its claims.
Appellant does not specify what he is appealing in his notice of appeal. The clerk’s record
contains an order granting appellee’s 1Th)tiOfl tor summary judgment signed on June 6. 2012. The
body of the order states in its entirety as lollows:
On this day the Court considered Plaintiff Texas Workforce Commission - Civil
Rights I)ivision’s Motion for Summary Judgment. After due consideration, the
Court finds the motion meritorious. It is therefore. ORDERED that Plaintiffs
Motion for Summary Judgment is hereby GRANTED.
The trial court’s order does not contain any decretal language specifying what damages. attorney’s
fees, or injunctive relief was awarded. In addition, the order does not contain any language that it
is intended to he a final and appealable order. It is unclear whether the trial court granted summary
judgment as to liability only or as to liability and damages. For these reasons, we conclude there is
no final and appealable order. Without an appealable order, this Court lacks jurisdiction.
Accordingly. we dismiss the appeal. See TEN. R. APP. P. 42.3(a).
—
/ / /2 2
AROLN WRIGH”l
CIIILF JUSTICE
121 006F.P05
_2_
Inairt uf Appeals
Fiftl 1i6trict jif exas at 1atla
JUDGMENT
RAYMONI) 1-IENSIIAW. Appellant Appeal from the 59th Judicial District Court
of Grayson County. Texas. (TrCt.No. 08-
No. 05-12-01 006-CV V. 0797-059.
Opinion delivered by Chief Justice Wright.
TEXAS WORKFORCE COMMISSION Justices Francis and Lang-Miers,
CIVIL RIGHTS DIVISiON. Appellee participating.
Based on the Courts opinion of this date. the appeal is DISMISSED.
It is ORI)ERED that appellee. Texas Workforce Commission - Civil Rights Division,
recover its costs of the appeal from appellant, Raymond I-Ienshaw.
Judgment entered October 9. 2012.
CAROl YN WRIGHT
(1 1ILj ILS fIL