Timothy Williams AKA Marcus Williams v. Barrington E. Notice and Nebit 1 LLC
Docket 01-26-00022-CV
Court of record · Indexed in NoticeRegistry archive · AI-enriched for research
- Filed
- Jurisdiction
- Texas
- Court
- Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston)
- Type
- Lead Opinion
- Case type
- Civil
- Disposition
- Dismissed
- Docket
- 01-26-00022-CV
Appeal from County Civil Court at Law No. 4 in Harris County for failure to file an appellant's brief
Summary
The First District of Texas dismissed Timothy Williams's appeal from the County Civil Court at Law No. 4 for failure to prosecute. Williams failed to file his appellant brief by the February 20, 2026 deadline, did not file the brief or a motion for extension after a March 6, 2026 notice, and did not respond by the March 16, 2026 date given. The court therefore dismissed the appeal and any pending motions as moot under applicable Texas appellate rules.
Issue Decided
- Whether the appeal should be dismissed for want of prosecution because the appellant failed to file a brief and did not respond to the court's notice.
Court's Reasoning
The court relied on Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.8(a) which requires an appellant to file a brief by the prescribed deadline and permits the court to notify an appellant whose brief is overdue. Because the appellant did not file a brief or request an extension after the court's notice, dismissal was appropriate under rules allowing dismissal for want of prosecution. The absence of any timely response or brief justified dismissing pending motions as moot.
Authorities Cited
- Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.8(a)
- Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.3(b)
- Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 43.2(f)
Parties
- Appellant
- Timothy Williams aka Marcus Williams
- Appellee
- Barrington E. Notice
- Appellee
- Nebit 1 LLC
- Judge
- Per Curiam (Justices Rivas-Molloy, Johnson, and Dokupil)
Key Dates
- Appellant brief due
- 2026-02-20
- Court notice to appellant
- 2026-03-06
- Deadline to file brief or extension after notice
- 2026-03-16
- Opinion issued
- 2026-04-16
What You Should Do Next
- 1
Consult appellate counsel immediately
A lawyer can advise whether a motion for rehearing, motion to reinstate, or other post-judgment relief is timely and appropriate under Texas appellate rules.
- 2
Check deadlines for reinstatement or motions
Determine statutory or rule-based deadlines for seeking reinstatement or rehearing, because timely filings are required to seek relief from a dismissal for want of prosecution.
- 3
Prepare record and brief if relief is permitted
If reinstatement is granted, be ready to file the appellant's brief and any required documents promptly to avoid a repeat dismissal.
Frequently Asked Questions
- What did the court decide?
- The court dismissed the appeal because the appellant failed to file a required brief and did not respond to the court's notice to do so.
- Who is affected by this decision?
- The appellant, Timothy Williams (aka Marcus Williams), is directly affected because his appeal was dismissed; the appellees are no longer defending against the appeal.
- What happens to any pending motions?
- The court dismissed any pending motions as moot when it dismissed the appeal.
- Can the appellant get the dismissal reconsidered?
- The opinion does not address rehearing or reinstatement procedures; the appellant should consult the Texas appellate rules or an attorney about possible motions for rehearing or to reinstate the appeal and any time limits that apply.
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
Opinion issued April 16, 2026
In The
Court of Appeals
For The
First District of Texas
————————————
NO. 01-26-00022-CV
———————————
TIMOTHY WILLIAMS AKA MARCUS WILLIAMS, Appellant
V.
BARRINGTON E. NOTICE AND NEBIT 1 LLC, Appellees
On Appeal from the County Civil Court at Law No. 4
Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Case No. 1251007
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant’s brief was due on February 20, 2026. No brief was filed. On
March 6, 2026, the Court issued a notice to appellant, advising him that his brief was
overdue and that the appeal might be dismissed unless he filed the brief or a motion
for extension by March 16, 2026. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(a). No response or brief
was filed.
Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. See TEX. R. APP.
P. 42.3(b), 43.2(f). Any pending motions are dismissed as moot.
PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Justices Rivas-Molloy, Johnson, and Dokupil.
2