COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH NO. 02-11-00130-CV

SUN PURCELL APPELLANT V. RONALD K. PURCELL AND MAX APPELLEES BISHOP

---------- FROM THE 233RD DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY ---------- MEMORANDUM OPINION1 ---------- Appellant Sun Purcell attempts to appeal from the trial court’s order granting Appellee Max Bishop’s motion for summary judgment. On April 11, 2011, we notified Appellant that we were concerned that we lacked jurisdiction over the appeal because the summary judgment, which disposes of only one of two defendants, appears to be neither a final judgment nor an appealable

See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4. interlocutory order.2 We stated that this appeal was subject to dismissal absent a response by April 21, 2011, showing grounds for continuing the appeal.

Appellant’s response does not show grounds for continuing the appeal.

Accordingly, because the summary judgment is neither a final judgment nor an appealable interlocutory order, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction.3

PER CURIAM PANEL: DAUPHINOT, GARDNER, and WALKER, JJ.

DELIVERED: May 12, 2011

See Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 192–93, 195 (Tex. 2001); see also Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 51.014(a) (Vernon 2008).

See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a), 43.2(f).