MATTHEW HANCOCK v. THOMAS MICHAELIDES AND TCM LAW GROUP (2025)

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

This appeal was docketed on April 8, 2025. Because the notice of appeal was not accompanied by the required proof of service, see NRAP 3(d)(1) (providing the notice of appeal must be served on all parties to the district court action and must “contain an acknowledgment of service or proof of service that conforms to the requirements of [NRAP] 25(d)”), on April 8, 2025, this court issued a notice directing appellant to provide this court with the required proof of service within 14 days. The notice advised that failure to comply could result in the dismissal of this appeal. See NRAP 3(a)(2) (“An appellant's failure to take any step other than the timely filing of a notice of appeal does not affect the validity of the appeal, but is ground only for the court to act as it deems appropriate, including dismissing the appeal”).

On May 14, 2025, this court granted appellant an extension of time until May 21, 2025, to file proof of service of the notice of appeal. Appellant filed a certificate of service on May 21, 2025, which this court struck because it was deficient. On May 24, 2025, appellant re-filed the proof of service of the notice of appeal. Because the proof of service was still deficient, on May 27, 2025, this court entered an order striking the document and directing appellant to file a compliant proof of service by May 29, 2025.

Because appellant had not re-filed a compliant proof of service of the notice of appeal, on June 12, 2025, this court entered an order directing appellant to file proof of service of the notice of appeal within 7 days. Appellant was cautioned that failure to comply would result in the dismissal of this appeal. To date, appellant has not complied. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.

It is so ORDERED.

Clerk of the Supreme Court Elizabeth A. Brown

By: