Barry Dwayne Minnfee v. Mr. David Sweetin, Asst. Warden Richard Gunnels, Chief Division Counsel (Fbi) and Mr. William D. Haman ( 2011 )

                                       NUMBER 13-11-00152-CV

                                 COURT OF APPEALS

                     THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                         CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________

BARRY DWAYNE MINNFEE, Appellant,

                                                             v.

MR. DAVID SWEETIN, ASST. WARDEN

RICHARD GUNNELS, CHIEF DIVISION

COUNSEL (FBI) AND MR. WILLIAM D. HAMAN,                     Appellees.

____________________________________________________________

                           On appeal from the 130th District Court

                                     of Matagorda County, Texas

____________________________________________________________

                            MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Rodriguez and Benavides

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

Appellant, Barry Wayne Minnfee, attempted to perfect an appeal from an order entered by the 130th District Court of Matagorda, County, Texas, in cause no. 11-H-0222-C.  Upon review of the documents before the Court, it appeared that there was no final appealable order.  The Clerk of this Court notified appellant of this defect so that steps could be taken to correct the defect, if it could be done.  See Tex. R. App. P. 37.1, 42.3.  Appellant was advised that, if the defect was not corrected within ten days from the date of receipt of this notice, the appeal would be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.  Appellant has responded that he is appealing from an order dated April 5, 2011. 

The District Clerk of Matagorda County informed us that the trial court record fails to include an order dated April 5, 2011, or a final judgment.  The Court, having fully reviewed and considered the documents herein, concludes that because there is no final or appealable order that invokes our appellate jurisdiction, the cause should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.  Accordingly, the appeal is hereby DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION.  See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a),(c).  Any pending motions are DISMISSED AS MOOT. 

PER CURIAM

Delivered and filed the

30th day of June, 2011.