ALLANNA WARREN v. PROGRESS RESIDENTIAL BORROWER LLC PARVEZ TENANT OF 272 BLUEFIELD LANE HENDERSON NV 89074 LAS VEGAS METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT THE CITY OF HENDERSON NEVADA HENDERSON POLICE DEPARTMENT HOLLIE CHADWICK HENDERSON POLICE DEPARTMENT CHIEF OF POLICE MAYOR MICHELLE ROMERO TIM BUCHANAN GINA WATERS AND LISA KELSO (2025)

ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE

Allanna Warren appeals from a district court order denying a motion seeking injunctive relief in a civil action. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Mark R. Denton, Judge.

Warren filed a complaint in which, among other things, she raised several causes of action alleging that respondents engaged in a conspiracy to harass her and deprive her of her civil rights. Warren further alleged respondents interfered with her use of an apartment. As a result of those activities, Warren alleged she suffered from emotional distress and physical harm.

Warren thereafter filed a motion in which she sought injunctive relief in the form of an order enjoining a property management company from destroying or tampering with her personal belongings, Warren further sought an order allowing her to return to the residential unit.

The district court thereafter issued a written order denying Warren's request for injunctive relief. The court stated that it had reviewed Warren's motion and concluded that it lacked merit. This appeal followed.

While Warren appeals from the district court's decision to deny her motion seeking injunctive relief, Warren does not raise any specific challenge as to this limited issue. Rather, Warren urges this court to review evidence demonstrating that she is the victim of a conspiracy involving various law enforcement agencies, business entities, and her neighbors.

“Determining whether to grant or deny a preliminary injunction is within the district court's sound discretion.” Univ. & Cmty. Coll. Sys. of Nev. v. Nevadans for Sound Gov't, 1.20 Nev. 712, 721, 100 P.3d 179, 187 (2004). “Because the district court has discretion in determining whether to grant a preliminary injunction, [appellate courts] will only reverse the district court's decision when the district court abused its discretion or based its decision on an erroneous legal standard or on clearly erroneous findings of fact.” Excellence Cmty. Mgmt. v. Gilmore, 131 Nev. 347, 351, 351 P.3d 720, 722 (2015) (quotation marks omitted). Moreover “[a]n abuse of discretion occurs if the district court's decision is arbitrary or capricious or if it exceeds the bounds of law or reason.” Skender v. Brunsonbuilt Constr. & Dev. Co., 122 Nev. 1430, 1435, 148 P.3d 710, 714 (2006) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Warren does not present cogent argument as to why she believes the district court erred by denying her motion. In particular, Warren does not allege that the district court's decision to deny her motion was based upon an erroneous legal standard or on clearly erroneous findings of fact. In addition, Warren does not contend that the district court's decision to deny her motion was arbitrary or capricious or exceeded the bounds of law or reason. As a result, we conclude Warren does not demonstrate she is entitled to relief. See Edwards v. Emperor's Garden Rest., 122 Nev. 317, 330 n.38, 130 P.3d 1280, 1288 n.38 (2006) (providing that appellate courts need not consider issues that are not supported by cogent argument). Accordingly, we

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.¹

Bulla, C.J.

Gibbons, J.

Westbrook, J.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Insofar as Warren raises arguments that are not specifically addressed in this order, we have considered the same and conclude that they do not present a basis for relief. In addition, we have reviewed the documents Warren has submitted on appeal and conclude no relief sought therein is warranted.