NUMBER 13-24-00365-CV COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG ____________________________________________________________ JULIO CESAR MARTINEZ, Appellant, v. SANDRA DE LA CERDA, Appellee. ____________________________________________________________ ON APPEAL FROM THE 206TH DISTRICT COURT OF HIDALGO COUNTY, TEXAS ____________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Benavides, Longoria, and Silva Memorandum Opinion by Justice Silva This matter is before the Court on its own motion. On July 17, 2024, appellant attempted to appeal the trial court’s order of enforcement by contempt entered on May 16, 2024. On July 24, 2024, the Clerk of the Court notified appellant that it appears the order he was attempting to appeal was unappealable. Appellant has failed to cure the defective notice of appeal and has not otherwise responded to the clerk’s notice.

Upon review of the documents before the Court, it appears that the order from which this appeal was taken was not a final appealable order. “[A]n order or judgment is not final for purposes of appeal unless it actually disposes of every pending claim and party or unless it clearly and unequivocally states that it finally disposes of all claims and all parties.” Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 205 (Tex. 2001). Furthermore, orders of enforcement, not involving confinement, are not reviewable on direct appeal.

See In re Long, 984 S.W.2d 623, 625 (Tex. 1999) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam) (explaining that the only relief from contempt orders that do not involve confinement is by writ of mandamus).

Absent an appealable interlocutory order or final judgment, this Court has no jurisdiction over this appeal. See Ogletree v. Matthews, 262 S.W.3d 316, 319 n.1 (Tex. 2007); Lehmann, 39 S.W.3d at 195. The Court, having considered the documents on file and appellant’s failure to correct the defect in this matter, is of the opinion that the appeal should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a). Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. See id. R. 42.3(a), (c).

CLARISSA SILVA Justice Delivered and filed on the 29th day of August, 2024.