From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

McCarroll v. Callahan

Court of Appeals of Texas, Second District, Fort Worth
Aug 24, 2006
No. 02-06-266-CV (Tex. App. Aug. 24, 2006)

Opinion

No. 02-06-266-CV

Delivered: August 24, 2006.

Appeal from the 30th District Court of Wichita County.

Panel D: GARDNER, WALKER, and McCOY, JJ.


MEMORANDUM OPINION


Appellant Kevin L. McCarroll, pro se, attempts to appeal from the trial court's orders denying his Motion for Appointment of Attorney and Motion for Funds for Expert Witness. On August 4, 2006, this court notified Appellant that it was concerned that it lacked jurisdiction over the appeal because the orders did not dispose of all parties and issues in the case and did not appear to be appealable interlocutory orders and informed him that unless he or any party desiring to continue the appeal filed with the court a response showing grounds for continuing the appeal, the appeal would be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a). Appellant filed a response, but the response does not state sufficient grounds for continuing the appeal. We therefore dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction. See id.; Tex.R.App.P. 43.2(f).


Summaries of

McCarroll v. Callahan

Court of Appeals of Texas, Second District, Fort Worth
Aug 24, 2006
No. 02-06-266-CV (Tex. App. Aug. 24, 2006)
Case details for

McCarroll v. Callahan

Case Details

Full title:KEVIN L. McCARROLL, Appellant, v. THOMAS CALLAHAN, ET AL., Appellees

Court:Court of Appeals of Texas, Second District, Fort Worth

Date published: Aug 24, 2006

Citations

No. 02-06-266-CV (Tex. App. Aug. 24, 2006)