Opinion
No. 07-18-00109-CV
06-25-2018
RONALD WINEGARDNER, APPELLANT v. STATE OFFICE OF RISK MANAGEMENT, STATE OF TEXAS, AND TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, APPELLEES
On Appeal from the 69th District Court Moore County, Texas
Trial Court No. 17-34 , Honorable Ron E. Enns, Presiding
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and PARKER, JJ.
Appellant, Ronald Winegardner, appeals the trial court's order granting summary judgment in favor of appellee State Office of Risk Management ("SORM"). We dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.
Winegardner sued appellees, the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, the State of Texas, and SORM, seeking judicial review of a final decision issued by a Texas Workers' Compensation Commission appeals panel. See TEX. LAB. CODE ANN. § 410.204 (West Supp. 2017), § 410.252 (West 2015). The record does not indicate whether citation was requested, issued, or served on appellees. See TEX. R. CIV. P. 99, 106, 107. Only SORM answered the suit. SORM later filed a no-evidence and traditional motion for summary judgment. The trial court signed an order granting SORM's motion on February 16, 2018. This appeal followed.
We have jurisdiction to hear an appeal from a final judgment or from an interlocutory order made immediately appealable by statute. See Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001); Stary v. DeBord, 967 S.W.2d 352, 352-53 (Tex. 1998) (per curiam). In cases where there is no trial on the merits, a judgment or order is a final judgment for purposes of appeal if it actually disposes of all pending parties and claims or it expressly states that it disposes of all parties and claims. Lehmann, 39 S.W.3d at 200-04.
The trial court's order granting SORM's motion for summary judgment did not address Winegardner's claims against the TDCJ or the State, nor did it expressly state that it disposed of all parties and claims. By letter of May 23, 2018, we notified Winegardner and SORM that it did not appear a final judgment or appealable order had been issued by the trial court and directed them to show how we have jurisdiction over the appeal. Both parties filed responses. Winegardner's did not address the finality of the order in his letter to the Court. SORM, in its letter, took the position the order was not a final judgment.
We agree with SORM that the order granting its motion for summary judgment is not a final judgment, but rather an interlocutory order. See Lehmann, 39 S.W.3d at 200. Our review of an interlocutory order must be specifically authorized by statute. See Stary, 967 S.W.2d at 352-53. As we have found no authority allowing an interlocutory appeal, we are without jurisdiction to review the order. Id. at 354.
Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction without prejudice to its refiling after a final judgment is entered. TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a). Winegardner's motion for an extension of time to file appellant's brief is dismissed as moot.
Per Curiam