Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
RONNIE RAMAEL MOOR TODD, Appellant, v. DAVID CLIFTON; JASMINE K. WARD; LACE MONIQUE GRAHAM; GENE STEVEN DRAKULICH; SHELLY T. O'NEILL; TAMMY RIGGS; BARBARA S. MCCARTHY; BILL PAGANETTI; AARON D. FORD; DARIN BALAAM; FRANCISCO AGUILAR; DONAL MINIHAN; CHRIS SARMAN; KALIE WORK; KATHRYN NANCE; ZACH CONINE; JOE LOMBARDO; STAVROS ANTHONY; ANDY MATTHEWS; AND DOUGLAS HERNDON, Respondents.1
ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE
Ronnie Ramael Moor Todd appeals from a district court order of dismissal. Second Judicial District Court, Washoe County; Lynne K. Jones, Judge.
Todd initiated the underlying proceeding by filing a “master bill of lading” in July 2025, where Todd purported to sue various entities and individuals, including public and government officials. Specifically, Todd claimed he is a “Moor” and that he is not subject to the laws of the United States. Various respondents filed motions to dismiss pursuant to NRCP 12(b)(5). Thereafter, the district court dismissed the action in its entirety and found that Todd's filings failed to provide information establishing jurisdiction, did not give notice to any defendant of the factual basis of any claims, and. did not adhere to the requirement of a short and plain statement of jurisdiction or claims. This appeal followed.
Todd raises various assertions in his brief on appeal but fails to substantively address the grounds on which the district court dismissed his case or argue that the court failed to use the proper procedure in dismissing the action. He has thus forfeited any challenge related to the same. See Palmieri v. Clark County, 131 Nev. 1028, 1033 n.2, 367 P.3d 442, 446 n.2 (Ct. App. 2015) (stating that issues that are not raised on appeal are deemed forfeited). Because Todd fails to present cogent argument as to why he believes the district court erroneously dismissed his complaint, he does not demonstrate he 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.
Bulla, C.J.
Gibbons, J.
Westbrook, J.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: No. 91411-COA
Decided: April 29, 2026
Court: Court of Appeals of Nevada.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)