Sampson v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Ct.

appellant's stay petition at the same time that it granted respondents' motions to dismiss. Appellant also challenges a district court order entered on November 8, 2012, that dismissed appellant's complaint with respect to respondents Roger, Goettsch, Pate, Miller, Biggs, Garcia, McDonald, and Heath. Specifically, appellant contends that the district court improperly dismissed these respondents without first ruling on appellant's motion to compel. Appellant has pointed to no authority suggesting that the district court would have been authorized to grant the relief that appellant was requesting in his motion to compel. Accordingly, we conclude that the district court properly denied the motion to compel when it entered the November 8 order. See Bd. of Gallery of History, Inc. v. Datecs Corp., 116 Nev. 286, 289, 994 P.2d 1149, 1150 (2000) (noting that the district court's failure to rule on a request constitutes a denial of the request). We therefore ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.'

C.J.

J. Hardesty

cc: Hon. James Todd Russell, District Judge Willie D. Sampson Attorney General/Carson City Christopher R. Oram Carson City Clerk

Footnotes

[1] We have considered appellant's remaining arguments and conclude that they lack merit. In light of this disposition, we deny the relief requested in appellant's September 29, 2014, filings. SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) 1947A 0047( SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 3 (0) 1907A