Cordell Moody v. Steven Simmons, et al--Appeal from 76th District Court of Camp County

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » Texas » 6th District Court of Appeals » 2010 » Cordell Moody v. Steven Simmons, et al--Appeal from 76th District Court of Camp County

State: Texas

Court: Texas Northern District Court

Docket No: 06-10-00089-CV

Case Date: 10/14/2010

Plaintiff: Moore, Darrick B.

Defendant: The State of Texas--Appeal from 36th District Court of Aransas County

Preview:IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS No. 10-10-00005-CV BARRY WION, Appellant v. JANIE COCKRELL, ANN BYROM, J. MISSILDINE, A.R. MASSINGIL, AND KELLI WARD, Appellees From the 52nd District Court Coryell County, Texas Trial Court No. COT-02-34470 MEMORANDUM OPINION
Barry Wion, a prison inmate, sued several prison employees,1 Ann Byrom, J. Missildine, A.R. Massingil, and Kelli Ward, (the TDCJ employees) for damages stemming from a disciplinary procedure regarding the damage of an overdue library book checked out to Wion. This suit was originally filed in 2002. The trial court

Janie Cockrell was also sued but the final order indicates that she had been dismissed previously from the suit. Wion does not challenge her dismissal from the suit.
1

rendered an order and final judgment granting the TDCJ employees' motion to dismiss and motion for summary judgment. Wion appeals, and we affirm. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW In his first issue, Wion contends that the trial court erred in refusing to issue findings of fact and conclusions of law in the underlying case. The underlying case was disposed of by summary judgment. A party is not entitled to findings of fact and conclusions of law following summary judgment. Ikb Indus. v. Pro-Line Corp., 938

S.W.2d 440, 442 (Tex. 1997). Accordingly, the trial court did not err in refusing to issue findings of fact and conclusions of law. Wion's first issue is overruled. FINAL ORDER In his second issue, Wion argues the trial court abused its discretion or otherwise erred when it issued its order and final judgment. Under this issue, Wion includes eight sub-points. Summary Judgment Standard of Review In its "Order and Final Judgment" the trial court granted what it called the TDCJ employees' "Second Amended Motion to Dismiss and Motion for Summary Judgment."2 Wion's suit was dismissed with prejudice as frivolous, and the TDCJ employees were granted judgment as a matter of law. We review a trial court's decision to grant or to deny a motion for summary judgment de novo. See Tex. Mun. Power Agency v. Pub. Util. Comm'n of Tex., 253 S.W.3d

The document that the TDCJ employees filed was titled as a second amended motion for summary judgment only. However, upon examining the motion, we find that the employees also asked for a dismissal.
2

Wion v. State

Page 2

184, 192, 199 (Tex. 2007).

Under the traditional summary judgment standard, the

movant has the burden to show that no genuine issues of material fact exist and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. TEX. R. CIV. P. 166a(c); Nixon v. Mr. Prop. Mgmt. Co., Inc., 690 S.W.2d 546, 548 (Tex. 1985). In deciding whether there is a disputed material fact issue precluding summary judgment, evidence favorable to the nonmovant will be taken as true, and every reasonable inference must be indulged in favor of the non-movant and any doubts resolved in its favor. Nixon, 690 S.W.2d at 548-49.

Download 10553.pdf