KAREN L. VALIHURA, Justice.
(1) On May 22, 2017, the appellant, John Towers, filed a notice of appeal from the Family Court's order of May 19, 2017, denying his motion for an emergency ex parte order in a custody matter. The Family Court docket reflects that it was Towers' seventh such motion in the case and that all of his prior motions were denied.
(2) On May 23, 2017, the Clerk issued a notice directing Towers to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed for his failure to comply with Supreme Court Rule 42 when taking an appeal from an apparent interlocutory order.
(3) Absent compliance with Rule 42, this Court is limited to the review of a final judgment.
(4) An interlocutory order is an interim order that does not dispose of the entire case but leaves it for further action to settle and determine the controversy.
(5) In this case, the Family Court did not intend its May 19 order to be the final act in the underlying custody matter. The May 19 order denies the issuance of an ex parte order and provides that the action "will proceed in the usual course of business."
(6) The May 19 order denying Towers' motion for emergency ex parte order is an interlocutory and not a final order.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, under Supreme Court Rule 29(b) that the appeal is DISMISSED.