MCCANDLESS v. ANDERSON (2019)

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

This is a pro se appeal from a district court order stating its inclination to deny a motion to modify child custody and other requests for relief. Eighth Judicial District Court, Family Court Division, Clark County; Charles J. Hoskin, Judge.

Review of the documents submitted to this court pursuant to NRAP 3(g) reveals a jurisdictional defect. Specifically, the district court notes in the challenged order that it is without jurisdiction over the matter at this time because the parties have a pending appeal, see McCandless vs. Anderson, Docket No. 77868, and therefore the order is only a statement of the court's inclinations. See Huneycutt v. Huneycutt, 94 Nev. 79, 575 P.2d 585 (1978). Therefore, the order designated in the notice of appeal is not substantively appealable. See NRAP 3A(b). This court has jurisdiction to consider an appeal only when the appeal is authorized by statute or court rule. Taylor Constr. Co. v. Hilton Hotels, 100 Nev. 207, 678 P.2d 1152 (1984). No statute or court rule provides for an appeal from an order merely setting forth a district court's inclinations. This court lacks jurisdiction, and

ORDERS this appeal DISMISSED.