What did the court decide?

The court struck the appellant’s noncompliant brief and dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution because the brief failed to follow appellate rules and the appellant was given chances to fix it.

Who is affected by this decision?

The appellant, Kevin McBride, is directly affected because his appeal was dismissed; the appellee is unaffected and the trial court judgment stands unless further relief is sought.

McBride may consider filing a motion for rehearing or other appropriate post-judgment relief in the appellate court, or seek relief from the Texas Rules if specific exceptions apply, though success may be limited.

Why was the brief deficient?

The brief primarily used conclusory, bulleted statements without citing the trial record or legal authority, which violates requirements that arguments be supported by citations and substantive legal discussion.

Can this dismissal be appealed?

A dismissal for want of prosecution is a final appellate disposition; options are limited but may include a motion for rehearing or a petition for review to the Texas Supreme Court in appropriate circumstances.

Kevin McBride v. Yuliana Esmeralda Rios-Flores

Docket 08-25-00282-CV

Court of record · Indexed in NoticeRegistry archive · AI-enriched for research

CivilDismissed

Filed: Apr 22, 2026 · 1 week ago
Jurisdiction: Texas
Court: Texas Court of Appeals, 8th District (El Paso)
Type: Lead Opinion
Case type: Civil
Disposition: Dismissed
Docket: 08-25-00282-CV

Appeal to the Eighth District Court of Appeals from a Travis County district court judgment; court reviewed compliance of the appellant's brief with appellate rules.

Summary

The Court of Appeals for the Eighth District of Texas struck Kevin McBride’s appellate brief for failure to substantially comply with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure after multiple notices and an opportunity to cure. McBride’s March 30, 2026 brief was deficient—containing conclusory, bulleted statements without citation to the record or legal authority—so the court treated the filing as if no brief had been filed and dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution. The court explained that liberal construction of procedural rules does not require the court to perform a party’s legal research or factual hunting.

Issues Decided

Whether the appellant's brief substantially complied with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure.
Whether the appellate court should strike a noncompliant brief and dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution after providing notice and an opportunity to amend.

Court's Reasoning

The court found McBride’s brief deficient because it consisted largely of conclusory, bulleted statements without record citations or legal authority, violating Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure (including 38.1 and 9.4(i)(3)). The court noted it will construe rules liberally but will not perform parties’ legal research or search the record for favorable facts. Because McBride had been warned and given a reasonable opportunity to file a compliant brief, the court struck the brief and dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution under the applicable rules.

Authorities Cited

Tex. R. App. P. 38.1
Tex. R. App. P. 38.8
Tex. R. App. P. 38.9

Parties

Appellant: Kevin McBride
Appellee: Yuliana Esmeralda Rios-Flores
Judge: Lisa J. Soto

Key Dates

March 17, 2026: 2026-03-17
March 27, 2026: 2026-03-27
March 30, 2026: 2026-03-30
April 6, 2026: 2026-04-06
Decision date: 2026-04-22

What You Should Do Next

1
Consult appellate counsel
Contact an attorney experienced in Texas appeals immediately to evaluate whether a timely motion for rehearing or other relief is viable and to prepare any necessary filings.
2
Consider motion for rehearing
If grounds exist (e.g., excusable neglect or failure to receive notice), prepare and file a motion for rehearing promptly, explaining why the dismissal should be set aside and attaching a proposed compliant brief if appropriate.
3
Preserve further review options
If rehearing is denied, discuss with counsel whether a petition for review to the Texas Supreme Court is appropriate and the deadlines and standards for seeking such review.

Frequently Asked Questions

What did the court decide?: The court struck the appellant’s noncompliant brief and dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution because the brief failed to follow appellate rules and the appellant was given chances to fix it.
Who is affected by this decision?: The appellant, Kevin McBride, is directly affected because his appeal was dismissed; the appellee is unaffected and the trial court judgment stands unless further relief is sought.
What happens next?: McBride may consider filing a motion for rehearing or other appropriate post-judgment relief in the appellate court, or seek relief from the Texas Rules if specific exceptions apply, though success may be limited.
Why was the brief deficient?: The brief primarily used conclusory, bulleted statements without citing the trial record or legal authority, which violates requirements that arguments be supported by citations and substantive legal discussion.
Can this dismissal be appealed?: A dismissal for want of prosecution is a final appellate disposition; options are limited but may include a motion for rehearing or a petition for review to the Texas Supreme Court in appropriate circumstances.

The above suggestions and answers are AI-generated for informational purposes only. They may contain errors. NoticeRegistry assumes no responsibility for their accuracy. Consult a qualified attorney before relying on them.

Full Filing Text

COURT OF APPEALS
                           EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
                                EL PASO, TEXAS
                                   ————————————
                                      No. 08-25-00282-CV
                                   ————————————

                                   Kevin McBride, Appellant
                                                  v.
                          Yuliana Esmeralda Rios-Flores, Appellee

                           On Appeal from the 53rd District Court
                                   Travis County, Texas
                            Trial Court No. D-1-FM-13-003061


                             M E MO RA N D UM O PI NI O N

       After providing Appellant, Kevin McBride, with notice and multiple opportunities to cure

defects in his appellate brief, we strike his latest brief for failure to substantially comply with the

Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure and dismiss his appeal.

       Most recently, our March 27, 2026 order stated that McBride’s March 17, 2026 appellate

brief failed to comply with Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 9.4(i)(3), and 38.1. We struck the

brief and ordered McBride to file a compliant brief no later than April 6, 2026. Our order cautioned

that failure to file a brief in substantial compliance with the rules could result in the dismissal of
this appeal for want of prosecution. Tex. R. App. P. 38.9(a), 38.8(a)(1). McBride timely filed a new

appellate brief on March 30, 2026, but because it does not substantially comply with the Texas

Rules of Appellate Procedure, we strike the brief and dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution.

Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a), 38.9(a).

       We construe the rules of procedure liberally so that the right to appellate review is not

waived on a procedural defect. Lion Copolymer Holdings, LLC v. Lion Polymers, LLC, 614

S.W.3d 729, 732 (Tex. 2020) (per curiam). However, appellate courts are “not responsible for

doing the legal research” to support a party’s contentions, Interest of T.D.G., No. 13-22-00051-CV,

2022 WL 4374991 at *2–3 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi Sept. 22, 2022, no pet) (mem. op.), nor are

we responsible for searching the record “for facts that may be favorable to a party’s position.”

Harris v. CR Propertywise LLC, No. 05-23-00349-CV, 2024 WL 3517710 at *1 (Tex. App.—

Dallas July 24, 2024, no pet.) (mem. op.). If we did those things, we would be abandoning our role

as judges and adopting the role of advocates. Interest of T.D.G., 2022 WL 4374991 at *2–3.

       If an appellate court determines that the briefing rules have been “flagrantly violated,” as

we have determined here, it may require the party to amend, supplement, or redraw the brief. Tex.

R. App. P. 38.9(a); Tex. R. App. P. 44.3 (“A court of appeals must not affirm or reverse a judgment

or dismiss an appeal for formal defects or irregularities in appellate procedure without allowing a

reasonable time to correct or amend the defects or irregularities.”). If, after a reasonable time to

amend, the appellant files another brief that does not comply with the rules of appellate procedure,

the appellate court “may strike the brief, prohibit the party from filing another, and proceed as if

the party had failed to file a brief,” which ultimately results in the dismissal of the appeal for want

of prosecution. Tex. R. App. P. 38.9(a); See Lampley v. Sterling, No. 01-22-00549-CV, 2023 WL

4110845 at *2 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] June 22, 2023, pet. denied) (mem. op.) (per curiam)




                                                  2
(striking a brief containing conclusory statements and a bulleted list of “hornbook law” for non-

compliance and dismissing for want of prosecution); Ausbie v. Salvation Army, Inc., No. 02-19-

00240-CV, 2020 WL 479281 at *1 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Jan. 30, 2020, no pet.) (mem. op.)

(striking a non-compliant brief and dismissing the appeal for want of prosecution); Porter v.

Barnes, No. 03-22-00648-CV, 2023 WL 5208031 at *2 (Tex. App.—Austin Aug. 15, 2023, no pet.)

(mem. op) (same); Sepulveda v. Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB as Trustee for Cascade

Funding Mortgage Trust HB10, No. 04-24-00696-CV, 2025 WL 1129028 at *1 (Tex. App.—

San Antonio April 16, 2025, no pet.) (mem. op.) (per curiam) (same); Shockley v. Yalk, No. 07-22-

00128-CV, 2023 WL 1993683 (Tex. App.—Amarillo Feb. 14, 2023, no pet.) (mem. op.) (same);

Grigg v. Waggonner, No. 09-24-00276-CV, 2025 WL 1186328 at *1 (Tex. App.—Beaumont

April 24, 2025, pet. dism’d w.o.j.) (mem. op.) (per curiam) (same); Ruohonen v. LRCA Investment

LLC, No. 10-24-00213-CV, 2025 WL 719841 at *1 (Tex. App.—Waco Mar. 6, 2025, no pet.)

(mem. op.) (same); Rojas v. Gaskin, No. 14-23-00873-CV, 2024 WL 5087419 at *2 (Tex. App—

Houston [14th Dist.] Dec. 12, 2024, pet. denied) (mem. op) (same).

         In the case before us, McBride filed briefs that did not meet the requirements of the

appellate rules. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.1;Tex. R. App. P. 44.3. The argument section of his

March 30, 2026 brief consists of a bulleted list of conclusory statements without citation to the

record or to legal authority supporting his contentions.1 Tex. R. App. P. 38.1(i).




1
  We acknowledge that the argument section of the brief contains one citation to Texas Family Code § 156.101, but
McBride makes no attempt to provide a substantive legal argument linking the statute to the facts of his case. “[W]hen
a brief has no substantive argument, with appropriate citations to authorities and the record, the brief is insufficient
and presents no basis for reversal.” Lampley v. Sterling, No. 01-22-00549-CV 2023 WL 4110845 at *2 (Tex. App.—
Houston [1st Dist.] June 22, 2023, pet. denied).


                                                           3
        Accordingly, we “proceed as if [McBride] had failed to file a brief[,]” Tex. R. App. P.

38.9(a), and dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a), 38.9(a),

42.3(b), (c).

                                            LISA J. SOTO, Justice

April 22, 2026

Before Salas Mendoza, C.J., Palafox, and Soto, JJ.




                                               4