the motion or appear at the summary-judgment hearing); see also Tex. Dep't of Pub. Safety v. J. W. D., No. 03-14-00101-CV, 2014 WL 7464229, at *1 (Tex. App.—Austin Dec. 31, 2014, pet. denied) (mem. op.) ("The fact that the Department had filed an answer and had notice of the hearing does not alter the fact that the Department did not participate in the actual decision-making event from which the expunction order resulted."); Meadows v. FIA Card Servs., N.A., No. 09-12-00051-CV, 2012 WL 3860648, at *1 (Tex. App.—Beaumont Sept. 6, 2012, no pet.) (mem. op.) (concluding that, although the appellant filed a summary judgment response and a motion to defer a summary judgment hearing, "those documents were filed . . . long after the trial court had granted [the summary judgment] motion" and therefore the record did not indicate that the appellant had "filed a timely summary judgment response or any post-judgment motions or requests that amount to participation in the decision-making event"); Hornsby v. Alter's Gem Jewelry, Ltd., No. 09-04-0542 CV, 2005 WL 3073790, at *2 (Tex. App.—Beaumont Nov. 17, 2005, pet. denied) (mem. op.) (explaining that the appellant did not participate in the summary judgment proceedings because he did not file a response to the summary judgment motion or attend the hearing); Bass v. Bass, No. 01-00-00745-CV, 2002 WL 1227193, at *4 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] June 6, 2002, no pet.) (mem. op.) (concluding that the appellant met the non-participation requirement even though the appellant either "deliberately or intentionally" did not participate in the decision-making event). We sustain appellants' first issue.

Because she did not file a response, and in its order of dismissal the trial court found that she failed to respond to the State's motion, we conclude that Kessel-Revis did not participate in the hearing that resulted in the judgment that is the subject of the restricted appeal. See Hornsby v. Alter's Gem Jewelry, Ltd., No. 09-04-542 CV, 2005 WL 3073790, at **1-2 (Tex. App.—Beaumont Nov. 17, 2005, pet. denied) (mem. op.) (a party who does not submit a response to a matter determined on written motion meets the non-participation requirement for a restricted appeal). Error on the Face of the Record

Consequently, Jackson waived any error concerning the trial court's failure to grant a continuance of the summary judgment hearing. See Hornsby v. Alter's Gem Jewelry, Ltd., No. 09-04-00542-CV, 2005 WL 3073790, at *3 (Tex.App.-Beaumont Nov. 17, 2005, pet. denied) (mem. op.). For all these reasons, we overrule Jackson's first issue.