COURT OF APPEALS

                                       SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                                                   FORT WORTH

                                        NO. 2-05-381-CV

BRADY HICKS, JR.                                                              APPELLANT

                                                   V.

TARRANT COUNTY SHERIFF=S                                               APPELLEES

DEPARTMENT, SHERIFF DEE

ANDERSON, DEPUTY/JAILER LINGLE,

DEPUTY/JAILER J. GARCIA, AND

DEPUTY/JAILER PARKER

                                              ------------

           FROM THE 153RD DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

                                              ------------

                                MEMORANDUM OPINION^[1]

                                              ------------

Appellant Brady Hicks, Jr. is attempting to appeal the trial court's order dismissing defendant Sheriff Dee Anderson from the underlying lawsuit pursuant to Texas Tort Claims Act section 101.106(e).  See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. ' 101.106(e) (Vernon 2005).  Because this order is not an appealable interlocutory order, we will dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

On November 3, 2005, we notified Hicks of our concern that this court lacked jurisdiction over the appeal because the dismissal order does not dispose of all parties and issues in the case and does not appear to be a final, appealable interlocutory order.  See id. ' 51.014 (Vernon Supp. 2005); Lehmann v. Har‑Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 192‑93 (Tex. 2001).  Additionally, we informed Hicks that the trial court had confirmed that no severance order had been signed severing his claims against Sheriff Dee Anderson from his claims against the other defendants.  We also informed Hicks that the appeal was subject to dismissal unless he or any party desiring to continue the appeal filed a response with this court showing grounds for continuing the appeal.  See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a).  We received a response from Hicks stating that he desired for his appeal to continue, but he failed to show any grounds for continuing the appeal.

Because the dismissal order is not a final judgment or an appealable interlocutory order, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction.  See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a); 43.2(f).

PER CURIAM

PANEL D:   WALKER, J.; CAYCE, C.J.; and MCCOY, J.

DELIVERED: December 1, 2005