Opinion

Charles Clay Warner, Jr. appeals from an order of dismissal in his suit against Zelda Glass and the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division (TDCJ). Glass moved for dismissal under Chapter 14 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 14.001 (Vernon 1986 & Supp. 2002). The trial court granted her motion. No mention was made of TDCJ in Glass's motion or the trial court's order of dismissal.

This Court has jurisdiction of final judgments only. Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 200 (Tex. 2001). An order that does not finally dispose of all remaining parties and claims is not a final order. Id. If the intent to dispose of the case is not unequivocally expressed in the language of the order itself, then the order is not final. Id.

Here the trial court's order does not indicate it applies to TDCJ. Therefore, this court is without jurisdiction over the appeal.

We notified Warner of this defect and gave him ten days in which to show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3. Initially, Warner requested an extension of time in which to respond, and we granted his motion. Warner then filed an Appellate Motion to Delay Cause, in which he requested we postpone action until the trial court "rule [sic] upon . . . Appellate Motion for findings of fact and conclusions of law - And enter final judgment of its findings with the clerk of the sixth district Appeals court regarding 'TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION.'"

Findings of fact and conclusions of law will not affect the finality of the judgment. Therefore, we overrule Warner's Appellate Motion to Delay Cause. Because the judgment is not final, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. ⁽¹⁾

Ben Z. Grant

Justice

Date Submitted: August 15, 2002

Date Decided: August 16, 2002

Do Not Publish

1. Warner can, of course, file the appeal when the judgment becomes final.