Foley v. Gillespie

Nevada Supreme Court

Foley v. Gillespie

DecidedMay 14, 2014

Docket64351

StatusUnpublished

This text of Foley v. Gillespie (Foley v. Gillespie) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Nevada Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Foley v. Gillespie, (Neb. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

Having considered the petition, answer, supplement, and supporting documents,' we conclude that our intervention by extraordinary writ relief is not warranted. See NRS 34.160; NRS 34.320; Smith, 107 Nev. at 677, 818 P.2d at 851. Petitioner challenges the order holding him in contempt on the basis that it was not signed by a district judge. 2 NRS 425.3844 provides that when no objection to a master's recommendation is filed within ten days, the order is deemed approved by the district court, the clerk of the court can file the recommendation, and the recommendation has the force and effect of an order or decree of the district court. See NRS 425.3844(3)(a), (9). Here, petitioner has not demonstrated that he timely objected to the master's recommendation to hold him in contempt. Thus, the order was deemed approved by the

1 We direct the clerk of this court to file petitioner's motion to supplement and certificate of service, provisionally received in this court on December 19, 2013. Having considered petitioner's motion and the opposition thereto, we grant the motion in part and direct the clerk of this court to detach from the motion and file petitioner's supplemental petition and appendix. We, however, deny the motion in part regarding petitioner's request for leave to add additional respondents to this writ petition and to file a reply brief.

2 To the extent that petitioner challenges the legality of his confinement, NRAP 22 requires that an original petition for a writ of habeas corpus be filed in the district court in the first instance. Moreover, we note that any such challenge may have been rendered moot upon petitioner's release from confinement. See Ex parte Shepley, 66 Nev. 33, 41, 202 P.2d 882, 886 (1949) (explaining that a writ of habeas corpus is unavailable unless the petitioner is presently restrained).

SUPREME COURT OP NEVADA 2 (0) 1947A district court. Petitioner has therefore not demonstrated that this court's intervention by extraordinary writ relief is warranted. See Pan, 120 Nev. at 228, 88 P.3d at 844. Accordingly, we ORDER the petition DENIED.

Hardesty

J.

cc: Michael Foley Marquis Aurbach Coiling Liesl K. Freedman Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 3 I947A

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Having considered the petition, answer, supplement, and supporting documents,' we conclude that our intervention by extraordinary writ relief is not warranted. See NRS 34.160; NRS 34.320; Smith, 107 Nev. at 677, 818 P.2d at 851. Petitioner challenges the order holding him in contempt on the basis that it was not signed by a district judge. 2 NRS 425.3844 provides that when no objection to a master's recommendation is filed within ten days, the order is deemed approved by the district court, the clerk of the court can file the recommendation, and the recommendation has the force and effect of an order or decree of the district court. See NRS 425.3844(3)(a), (9). Here, petitioner has not demonstrated that he timely objected to the master's recommendation to hold him in contempt. Thus, the order was deemed approved by the

1 We direct the clerk of this court to file petitioner's motion to supplement and certificate of service, provisionally received in this court on December 19, 2013. Having considered petitioner's motion and the opposition thereto, we grant the motion in part and direct the clerk of this court to detach from the motion and file petitioner's supplemental petition and appendix. We, however, deny the motion in part regarding petitioner's request for leave to add additional respondents to this writ petition and to file a reply brief.

2 To the extent that petitioner challenges the legality of his confinement, NRAP 22 requires that an original petition for a writ of habeas corpus be filed in the district court in the first instance. Moreover, we note that any such challenge may have been rendered moot upon petitioner's release from confinement. See Ex parte Shepley, 66 Nev. 33, 41, 202 P.2d 882, 886 (1949) (explaining that a writ of habeas corpus is unavailable unless the petitioner is presently restrained).

SUPREME COURT OP NEVADA 2 (0) 1947A district court. Petitioner has therefore not demonstrated that this court's intervention by extraordinary writ relief is warranted. See Pan, 120 Nev. at 228, 88 P.3d at 844. Accordingly, we ORDER the petition DENIED.

Hardesty

J.

cc: Michael Foley Marquis Aurbach Coiling Liesl K. Freedman Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 3 I947A

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Foley v. Gillespie, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/foley-v-gillespie-nev-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack