ANDERSON v. DPS CHAMBERS (2020)

ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE

Jesse Anderson appeals from a district court order dismissing a breach of contract action. First Judicial District Court, Carson City; James E. Wilson, Judge.

Jesse brought the underlying breach of contract action against respondents, the State of Nevada Department of Public Safety (DPS) and various DPS officials alleging that events and circumstances surrounding his 2015 arrest and the subsequent revocation of his parole violated the terms of a prior settlement agreement that Jesse had entered into with DPS. Respondents moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that it was barred by claim preclusion principles in light of the dismissal with prejudice of a previous civil rights action Jesse had filed in federal court. They further asserted that dismissal was likewise warranted because the complaint failed to state a claim for breach of contract and because Jesse failed to prosecute his complaint. The district court granted the motion on all grounds over Jesse's opposition, and this appeal followed.

On appeal, Jesse fails to provide any argument regarding the dismissal of the complaint on claim preclusion grounds or based on a failure to prosecute the complaint. As a result, he has waived any such arguments. See Powell v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 127 Nev. 156, 161 n.3, 252 P.3d 668, 672 n.3 (2011) (stating that issues not raised in appellant's opening brief are waived). And while Jesse summarily suggests that the district court erred in determining that the complaint failed to state a claim for breach of contract, he fails to develop and provide any cogent argument on this point. As a result, we need not address this issue. See Edwards v. Emperor's Garden Rest., 122 Nev. 317, 330 n.38, 130 P.3d 1280, 1288 n.38 (2006) (declining to consider issues that are not supported by cogent argument). In light of the forgoing, we necessarily affirm the district court's decision.

It is so ORDERED.