KARYL CLARKE v. TANESHA WHITE (2025)

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

This is a pro se appeal from a district court order regarding child custody issues and extending a temporary protection order against domestic violence. Eighth Judicial District Court, Family Division, Clark County; Michele Mercer, Judge.

Review of the notices of appeal and documents before this court reveals a jurisdictional defect. Although the challenged order involves child custody issues, appellant's notices of appeal specifically state that he is challenging only the portion of the order extending the temporary protection order. Additionally, on February 11, 2025, appellant filed a document titled “Motion of Errata and/or Clarification of Appeal Case and Issues,” wherein he reaffirms that he “is only appealing the motion to extend protection order.” No statute or court rule authorizes an appeal from a temporary protection order. See Sicor, Inc. v. Sacks, 127 Nev. 896, 900, 266 P.3d 618, 620 (2011) (stating that a temporary restraining order is not appealable); In re Temp. Custody of Five Minors, 105 Nev. 441, 777 P.2d 901 (1989) (an order subject to periodic mandatory review and modification is not a final, appealable order); Brown v. MHC Stagecoach, LLC, 129 Nev. 343, 345, 301 P.3d 850, 851 (2013) (explaining that this court has jurisdiction only when statute or court rule provides for an appeal). Accordingly, this court lacks jurisdiction and

ORDERS this appeal DISMISSED.¹

Pickering, J.

Cadish, J.

Lee, J.

FOOTNOTES

1.   In light of this order, appellant's Motion of Errata and/or Clarification, motion and amended motion for extension of time to file transcript request, and motion for extension of time to file opening brief are denied. The clerk shall strike the opening brief filed on April 10, 2025.