NO. 07-01-0507-CV IN THE COUR

T OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVEN TH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO PANEL A MARCH 4, 2 002

______________________________ CEDRIC JONES, APPELLANT

V. GARY D. G IFFORD, ET AL ., APPELLEE

_________________________________ FROM THE 251 ST DISTRIC T COURT O F POTT ER COUNTY; NO. 88649-C; HONORABLE PATR ICK A. PIRTLE, J UDGE

_______________________________ Before BOYD, C.J., and REAVIS an d JOHNSON, JJ. Appellant

Cedric Jon es, an indig ent inmate, has appeal ed pro se an order granting the moti on o f appellees Senior Warden Joseph K. Price and Pr operty Officer

Gifford to dismiss his civ il rig hts compla int in w hich he alleg es that corr ectional officersfailed to inventoryhis personal property and lost certain items. In tha t appeal, he has filed a motion asking us to order t he clerk of thi s court to pr epare and pr

ovi de him with a copy of the transcript

in this cause so that he may draft a sufficie nt brief. A copy of the clerk’s record2

has been provi ded to this cour t for purposes of the a ppeal . However, for the reas ons expressed below, we must dismiss the appeal.
The general rule is that a judg ment must be final before i t can be appealed. Lehmannv. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W .3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001 ). A judgment is final if it disposes of all parties

and issues. North East Ind ependent

School Dis t. v. Aldri

dge , 400 S.W .2d 893, 895 (Tex. 1966 ). Finality can also be achieved by sev erance, dismis sal, or non-suit of unresolved claims. See Park Place Hosp. v. Estate of Milo , 909 S.W.2d 508, 510 (Tex. 1995)

. The reco rd sh ows thatappellant sued S enior Warden Joseph K. Price, Lieutenant James R. Beach and Pr operty Officer

Gifford. Price was serv ed with ci tation on May 14, 2001, and Gifford was served thesame day. On Ju ne 7, 2001, Price and Gifford filed an original answer. Thereafter, on June 2 1, 2001, Price and Gifford filed a m otion to dismiss appellant ’s lawsu it as frivolous, whi ch was par tially premised on thei r lack of pers onal involvementin the depriv ation of appel lant’s property, their status as state officials , and official immunity. Service of citation was not effected on Bea ch unti l August 20, 2001. The record does not

show that B each ever fil ed an answer to appellant’s

complaint.
On December 14, 2001, the court enter ed an order g rant ing “Def endants Giff ord and Price’s Motion to Dismiss as Frivolous.” The order further stated : “It is here b y ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that said Motion be, and it is hereby GRANTED. Plaintiff’s claims in the above-s tyled and entitled cause of action are hereby DISMISSED.1 Appellant has also appeal ed from orders of thetrial court dismi ssing his petition for judicial review

and denying his motion for summary j udgment, motion for Spe ars Hearin g, and motion for prel iminary i njunction. 3 All relief not g ranted is specifically deni ed.” The order does not specify t he grounds upon which the motion to dismis s was g ranted.
To be final, a judg ment rendered in a proceeding other than a conventional trial on the merits must actually dispose of all claims and parties or state clearly and unequivocally thatit is a final judgment as to all claims a nd all parti es. Lehmann, 39 S.W.3d at 205. However, this order does not explicitly dispose of the claims ag ainst Beach. 1 The record also does not show

that the clai ms of appellant aga inst Priceand Giffor d were sever ed from the rest of the l awsuit. Therefore, because the record befor e us does not rev

eal that the judg ment is final as to all par

ties and all claims, we must and hereby do dismiss t he appeal.

John T. Bo yd Chief Justice Do not publish

.