Miller v. Freeman
Miller v. Freeman
Opinion of the Court
Our review of the documents submitted to this court pursuant to NRAP 3(g) reveals a jurisdictional defect. Specifically, the notice of appeal appears to be untimely filed under NRAP 4(a) because it appears that it was filed more than 30 days after service of written notice of entry of the orders appealed from. See NRAP 4(a)(1) ; NRAP 26(c). Written notice of entry of the custody order was filed and served by mail on December 11, 2017, and written notice of entry of the order denying NRCP 60(b) relief was filed and served by mail on January 11, 2018.
An untimely notice of appeal fails to vest jurisdiction in this court. See Healy v. Volkswagenwerk Aktiengesellschaft,
ORDER this appeal DISMISSED.
On December 29, 2017, appellant filed a motion "for Orders to Set Aside Order," which the district court construed as a motion seeking NRCP 60(b) relief.
Thus, even if appellant's motion seeking NRCP 60(b) relief could be construed as tolling the time to file the notice of appeal from the custody order, see AA Primo Builders, LLC v . Washington,
Respondent's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction filed on March 29, 2018, is denied as moot.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- Ashanti Malik MILLER v. Yausmenda FREEMAN
- Status
- Published