Steven Mitchell Gary v. Mary Roman: Gerald C. Moton, Esq. Irene Hall, Grand Jury Foreman And Unidentified Prosecutors of the 175th District Court
This text of Steven Mitchell Gary v. Mary Roman: Gerald C. Moton, Esq. Irene Hall, Grand Jury Foreman And Unidentified Prosecutors of the 175th District Court (Steven Mitchell Gary v. Mary Roman: Gerald C. Moton, Esq. Irene Hall, Grand Jury Foreman And Unidentified Prosecutors of the 175th District Court) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Mary
Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas July 23, 2015
No. 04-15-00349-CV
Steven Mitchell GARY, Appellant
v.
Mary ROMAN: Gerald C. Moton, Esq.; Irene Hall, Grand Jury Foreman; and unidentified Prosecutors of the 175th District Court, Appellee
From the 150th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2015-CI-01986 Honorable Laura Salinas, Judge Presiding
ORDER Steven Mitchell Gary filed the underlying action on February 5, 2015. The clerk’s record and docket sheet do not reflect that citation has issued or been served on any of the defendants. See TEX. R. CIV. P. 99 et seq. Nevertheless, Gary filed a motion for default judgment and, on July 13, 2015, he filed a notice of appeal, complaining about the denial of his motion.
After reviewing the clerk’s record, it appears that no final judgment has been rendered by the trial court. An order 1 denying a motion for default judgment is interlocutory. This court does not have jurisdiction to consider an appeal from an interlocutory order unless it is expressly authorized by statute. Stary v. DeBord, 967 S.W.2d 352, 352 (Tex. 1998); Jack B. Anglin Co., Inc. v. Tipps, 842 S.W.2d 266, 272 (Tex. 1992). No statute or rule authorizes an appeal from an order denying a default judgment.
Accordingly, we order a response due by August 3, 2015, showing cause why this appeal should not be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. If appellant fails to satisfactorily respond within the time provided, the appeal will be dismissed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(c). All deadlines in this matter are suspended until further order of the court.
_________________________________ Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice
1 The clerk’s record contains several letters to Gary from the Chief Staff Attorney of the Bexar County Civil District Courts that state Gary’s motion for default judgment was denied by the Presiding District Judge. However, the record does not contain a signed order. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 23rd day of July, 2015.
___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle Clerk of Court
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Steven Mitchell Gary v. Mary Roman: Gerald C. Moton, Esq. Irene Hall, Grand Jury Foreman And Unidentified Prosecutors of the 175th District Court, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/steven-mitchell-gary-v-mary-roman-gerald-c-moton-e-texapp-2015.