Timothy Brent Claiborne v. Lindy Gordon

• Court: Texas Court of Appeals, 6th District (Texarkana)
• Decided: May 21, 2026
• Docket: 06-26-00030-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

In the Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06-26-00030-CV

TIMOTHY BRENT CLAIBORNE, Appellant

V.

LINDY GORDON, Appellee

On Appeal from the 336th District Court Fannin County, Texas Trial Court No. CV-24-47022

Before Stevens, C.J., van Cleef and Rambin, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Justice Rambin MEMORANDUM OPINION

On October 23, 2025, Appellant, Timothy Brent Claiborne, filed a notice of appeal from

the trial court’s September 24, 2025, order, which denied Appellant’s motion for summary

judgment, denied Appellee Lindy Gordon’s motion for summary judgment as to the affirmative

defense of no contract, and granted Appellee’s motion for summary judgment as to Appellant’s

cause of action for falsely reporting theft of home. For the following reasons, we dismiss this

appeal for want of jurisdiction.

Our jurisdiction is constitutional and statutory in nature. See TEX. CONST. art. V, § 6;

TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 22.220 (Supp.). Unless we are given specific authority over an

interlocutory appeal from a particular type of order, we have jurisdiction only over appeals from

final judgments. Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195–96 (Tex. 2001), superseded

by statute, Indus. Specialists, LLC v. Blanchard Refin. Co., 652 S.W.3d 11, 14 (Tex. 2022); Ruiz

v. Ruiz, 946 S.W.2d 123, 124 (Tex. App.—El Paso 1997, no writ) (per curiam). An order

denying a summary judgment is generally not appealable because it is an interlocutory order, not

a final judgment. Cincinnati Life Ins. Co. v. Cates, 927 S.W.2d 623, 625 (Tex. 1996);

Humphreys v. Caldwell, 888 S.W.2d 469, 470 (Tex. 1994) (per curiam) (orig. proceeding).

Here, the trial court denied, or denied in part and granted in part, the parties’ motions for

summary judgment and, therefore, its order did not dispose of all of the parties’ claims.

Consequently, it is not a final, appealable order or judgment. By letter dated March 16, 2026, we

notified Appellant of this potential defect in our jurisdiction and afforded him the opportunity to

demonstrate proper grounds for our retention of the appeal. We warned Appellant that if we did

2 not receive an adequate response by March 26, 2026, we would dismiss his appeal. Appellant

did not file a response to our letter.

Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction.

Jeff Rambin Justice

Date Submitted: May 20, 2026 Date Decided: May 21, 2026