Canterbury v. U.S. Marshal Service
Canterbury v. U.S. Marshal Service
Opinion
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
RICHARD LEE CANTERBURY, No. 76604 Appellant, vs. UNITED STATES MARSHAL SERVICE; UNITED STATES MARSHAL FLD CARPENTER; AND HEALTH CARE SEP 0 7 2015 UNIT PHYSICIAN OR CONTRACT ELIZABEM i[31,14‘1 PHYSICIAN, DR. RUBEN SAAVEDRA, CLERK OF SUN: ME COURT Respondents. DEPUTY
ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL This is a pro se appeal from a district court order denying a motion for the appointment of counsel. Fifth Judicial District Court, Nye County; Kimberly A Wanker, Judge.
Our review of the documents submitted to this court pursuant to NRAP 3(g) reveals a jurisdictional defect. Specifically, it appears that the judgment or 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 denying a motion for the
SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA (0) 1947A e Is- 5s-010 appointment of counsel. We conclude that we lack jurisdiction, and we therefore ORDER this appeal DISMISSED.'
.
Gibbet& Hardesty
cc: Hon. Kimberly A. Wanker, District Judge Richard Lee Canterbury Ruben Saavedra United States Marshal Carpenter Nye County Clerk
'We take no action on the motion filed September 6, 2018.
SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA (0) 1947A
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.