Accomando v. Accomando (Child Custody)

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

MARIO ACCOMANDO, No. 85275

vs.

Appellant, MEL,'

GEORGANN ROSE ACCOMANDO, SEP 1. .0"22 • Res ondent. • ". 137 '..",s/N ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL Y.

DEP-MY

This is a pro se appeal from a divorce decree . Eighth Judicial District Court, Family Court Division, Clark County; Amy Mastin, Judge.

Review of the documents submitted to this court pursuant to

NRAP 3(g) reveals a jurisdictional defect. Specifically, the notice of appeal was untimely filed under NRAP 4(a) because it was filed more than 30 days after service of written notice of entry of the judgment or order. See NRAP 4(a)(1); NRAP 26(c). The divorce decree was filed on June 29, 2022, and

written notice of entry was served on appellant on July 6, 2022. Appellant did not file the notice of appeal until August 29, 2022, well after expiration of the 30-day appeal period. NRAP 4(a)(1). An untimely notice of appeal fails to vest jurisdiction in this court. Healy v. Volkstvagenwerk

Aktiengesellschaft, 103 Nev. 329, 741 P.2d 432 (1987). This court lacks jurisdiction and

ORDERS this appeal DISMISSED.'

, J.

Hardesty

Stiglich Herndon

'Appellant's motion for a stay is denied as moot.

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

pki7A

2

cc: Hon. Amy Mastin, District Judge, Family Court Division Mario Accomando Reza Athari & Associates, PLLC. Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

01, MITA