Boring v. City of Dayton

Full title: ANTHONY BORING, Appellant v. CITY OF DAYTON, Appellee

Court: Court of Appeals of Texas, Ninth District, Beaumont

Date published: Jun 30, 2005

No. 09-04-496 CV (Tex. App. Jun. 30, 2005)

Opinion

No. 09-04-496 CV

Opinion Delivered June 30, 2005.

On Appeal from the 75th District Court, Liberty County, Texas Trial Cause No. Cv 66076.

Appeal Dismissed.

Anthony Boring, pro se for appellant.

Neal J. Iverson, Norwood Inverson for appellee.

Before McKEITHEN, C.J., KREGER and HORTON, JJ.

MEMORANDUM OPINION¹

1 Tex.R.App.P. 47.4.

PER CURIAM.

On April 7, 2005, we abated the appeal for sixty days and warned the parties that the appeal would be dismissed unless a final judgment was signed by the trial court. As of today, we have not been notified of the entry of judgment. The order of abatement is therefore withdrawn. Neither a judgment nor an appealable order has been signed. Subject to certain statutory exceptions not applicable in this case, only final judgments are appealable. Tex. Civ. Prac. Rem. Code Ann. §§ 51.012, 51.014 (Vernon 1997 Supp. 2005). The appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Tex.R.App.P. 42.3.