This is an interlocutory appeal in a pending suit for divorce. The notice of appeal filed by Dave Dalal Smith recites that he is appealing an order denying his "request for injunctive relief." This order denied appellant's "Motion for Protective Order." The motion alleges a conflict of interest disqualifies counsel for the appellee, Lisa Suzette Smith, from acting as counsel in the divorce, and requests an order protecting the appellant from giving his deposition until the trial court resolves the conflict of interest issue. The trial court denied the motion and it is from that order that the appellant pursues an appeal. The order neither grants nor refuses a temporary injunction, and is not appealable. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 51.014(a)(4) (Vernon Supp. 2006); see also Tex. Fam. Code Ann. §§ 6.502, 6.507 (Vernon 2006). ⁽¹⁾ Generally, only final judgments are appealable. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 51.012 (Vernon 1997); Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001). The appellant has not identified the statute or rule that authorizes an accelerated appeal in this case. See, e.g., Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 51.014 (Vernon Supp. 2006). The appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction without reference to the merits.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

___________________________

CHARLES KREGER

Justice

Submitted on November 28, 2006

Opinion Delivered December 7, 2006

Before McKeithen, C.J., Gaultney and Kreger, JJ.

1. The granting or denial of a motion to disqualify is reviewable by mandamus. See National Med. Enters., Inc. v. Godbey, 924 S.W.2d 123, 133 (Tex. 1996).