HOUSTON v. MANDALAY BAY CORP (2022)

ORDER DISMISSING APPEALS

Appellant has filed what appear to be two identical notices of appeal, one bearing a criminal district court case number, and one bearing a civil district court case number. The notices state that appellant appeals from an “Order Granting in Part, Denying in Part, Defendant's Pro Per Motion to Dismiss Counsel from 2/1/2022.” To the extent appellant appeals from the February 1, 2022, “Order Granting In Part, Denying In Part Defendant's Pro Per Motion to Dismiss Counsel” entered in criminal district court case number C-21-357927-1, no statute or court rule allows an appeal from a postconviction order granting a motion to dismiss counsel, denying a motion to recuse the judge, and denying a request for money. See Castillo v. State, 106 Nev. 349, 352, 792 P.2d 1133, 1135 (1990) (explaining that this court has jurisdiction only when a statute or court rule provides for an appeal). To the extent appellant appeals from the “Order Denying Motion to Amend Complaint and Motion to Dismiss Counsel and Appoint Stand-By Counsel,” entered on February 28, 2022, in civil district court case number A-17-758861-C, no statute or court rule allows an appeal from such an order. See Brown v. MHC Stagecoach, LLC, 129 Nev. 343, 345, 301 P.3d 850, 851 (2013) (this court “may only consider appeals authorized by statute or court rule”). Accordingly, this court lacks jurisdiction and

ORDERS this appeal DISMISSED.