### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03
- 20
- 00 03 7
- CV

Luther W. Cobb, Sr. , Appellant

v. Joseph Campbell , Appellee

FROM THE 264 TH DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY NO. 310 ,732
- D , THE HONORABLE PAUL L. LEPAK , JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Luther W. Co bb, Sr. , acting p ro se, filed a notic e of appeal in December 2019 , from the trial court ’ s d enial of his motion for appointment of an attorney ad l item. The c lerk ’ s record contains the trial court ’ s order denying Cob b ’ s motion to appoint attorney ad litem, but that order is not s ubject to interlocutory appeal. See Tex . Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 51.014 (listing in terlocut ory order s t hat may be app ealed).

On F ebruary 4, 20 2 0 , the Clerk of this Court advised Cobb tha t it appears that this Court lacks jurisdiction over this matter because this C ourt ’ s jurisd iction is limited to appeals in which there exists a final or appeal able judgmen t or order which has been signed by a judge. S ee L ehman n v. Har

- Con Corp. , 39 S.W.3 d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001) (explaining that “ ge neral rule , with a few mostly statutory exceptions , is that an appeal m ay be taken only from a final judgment ” ) ; McKinnon v. Wall in , No. 03

- 18

- 00612

- CV, 2019 Tex. App. LEXIS 552, at * 4 (Tex. App.

—2

Austin Jan. 30, 2 01 9, no pet.) ( mem. op.) ( dismissing appeal because appellant failed to identify final judgment or appe alab le order that would support court ’ s ju risdiction)

. The Cl er k req uested that Cobb file a response by February 14 , 2020 , explaining how this Court may e xer cise jurisdiction over this appeal and advised him that the failure to do so would result in the dism issal of this appeal. See Te x. R. App. P. 42.3(a).

In response, Cobb filed a letter with this Court on February 12, 20 2 0 , in which he states tha t his notice of appeal is premature and refere nces a n “ Objection and Motion for Reh e aring: Continuance

. ” He also filed a motion to stay the trial court pr oceedings. In t his motion , Cobb seems to be arg uing that the fi nal decree of d ivorce be tween Cobb and his ex - wife
in trial court cause number 261,263

- D was void because “ someone lined th rough 266,263

- D and wrote 261,263

- D

. ” The und erlying case in this appeal , howev er, con cerns Joseph C ampbell ’ s petition for termination and adoption of stepchild that was file d in July 2019 in t rial court cause number 310

- 732

- D

. 1

Cobb has failed to identify a final judgment or appealable order in the u nderly ing

case t hat support s this Court ’ s jurisdiction. Because Cobb has not explained how this Court may

exer cise juri s dicti on over this appeal , we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction and d eny his motion to stay the trial court pro cee ding

. 2

1 The child ’ s mother , who was Cobb ’ s ex - wife, initially a lso was a petitioner , but she is dece ased. According to the petition, Camp bell is the child ’ s step father and was marr ied to Co bb ’ s ex - wife

.

2 On th is same date, this Court has dismissed Co bb ’ s related appeals in this Cour t ’ s cause numbers 03

- 20

- 0003 4

- CV , 03

- 2 0

- 0003 5

- CV , and 03

- 20

- 0003 6

- CV

.3 __________________________________________ Melissa Good win , Justice Before Justices Goodwin, Kelly , and Smith Dismissed for Wa nt of Jurisdictio n Fil ed: February 20, 2020