Full Opinion

Opinion issued September 11, 2026 In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-26-00276-CV ——————————— ERIK WILSON, Appellant V. KIMBERLY BROADLEY, Appellee On Appeal from the 461st District Court Brazoria County, Texas Trial Court Case No. 120880-F MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant, Erik Wilson, proceeding pro se, challenges the trial court’s February 17, 2026 order denying his bill of review. We dismiss the appeal. On May 6, 2026, Wilson filed his appellant’s brief with this Court. On July 28, 2026, this Court notified Wilson that his appellant’s brief did not comply with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure because, among other things, it did not properly identify parties and counsel; contain an appropriate table of contents; “state concisely the nature of the case,” “the course of [the] proceedings,” and “the trial court’s disposition of the case,” “supported by record references”; “include a statement explaining why oral argument should or should not be permitted”; “state concisely all issues or points presented for review”; “state concisely and without argument the facts pertinent to the issues or points presented,” “supported by record references”; “contain a succinct, clear, and accurate statement of the arguments made in the body of the brief”; “contain a clear and concise argument for the contentions made, with appropriate citations to authorities and to the record”; or include an appendix with the necessary contents. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1(a), (b), (d), (e), (f), (g), (h), (i), (k). Thus, on July 28, 2026, the Court struck Wilson’s May 6, 2026 brief and ordered him to file a corrected appellant’s brief that complied with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure within thirty days of the date of the Court’s order. The Court informed Wilson that if he did not file a corrected appellant’s brief that complied with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, it would strike his corrected brief, prohibit him from filing another, proceed as if he had failed to file an appellant’s 2 brief, and dismiss his appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(a)(1), 38.9(a), 42.3(b), 43.2(f); see also Tucker v. Fort Worth & W. R.R. Co., No. 02-19-00221-CV, 2020 WL 3969586, at *1 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth June 18, 2020, pet. denied) (mem. op.) (striking amended brief and dismissing appeal for want of prosecution where appellant ordered to file amended brief but amended brief also failed to comply with Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure); Tyurin v. Hirsch & Westheimer, P.C., No. 01-17-00014-CV, 2017 WL 4682191, at *1–2 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Oct. 19, 2017, no pet.) (mem. op.) (same). The Court also informed Wilson that if he failed to timely file his corrected brief, we would dismiss his appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(a)(1), 42.3, 43.2(f). Wilson did not timely file his corrected brief. Because Wilson did not timely file his corrected brief, we dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(a)(1), 42.3, 43.2(f); Bennett v. Jenkins, No. 01-21-00557-CV, 2022 WL 3268531, at *1–2 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Aug. 11, 2022, no pet.) (mem. op.); Orozco v. Reserve at Pecan Valley Apartments, No. 04-21-00447-CV, 2022 WL 848363, at *1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Mar. 23, 2022, no pet.) (mem. op.); In re W.A.F., No. 04-19-00723-CV, 2020 WL 5913842, at *1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Oct. 7, 2020, no pet.) (mem. op.) (after appellate court struck appellant’s brief for failure to comply with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.1, appellant failed to file amended brief as ordered, and appellate court dismissed appeal for want of prosecution); see also Averett v. 3 Huffman Indep. Sch. Dist., No. 01-19-00482-CV, 2020 WL 717543, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Feb. 13, 2020, no pet.) (mem. op.) (“When an appellant fails to file a brief, we may dismiss his appeal for want of prosecution.”). We dismiss any pending motions as moot. PER CURIAM Panel consists of Chief Justice Adams and Justices Guiney and Johnson. 4