Here, appellant timely submitted his second level grievance,
which was not accepted because it requested a different remedy than the
initial grievance, the termination of an NDOC officer. Respondents
notified appellant in writing that the second level grievance was not
accepted due to the inclusion of the request for this new remedy, and
appellant acknowledged receipt of this notice on July 5, 2012.
Consequently, appellant was required to resubmit the second level
grievance by July 10, 2013, to comply. Id. Appellant, however, failed to
resubmit this document, and thus, his grievance was deemed abandoned
and, as a result, he failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. See id.;
NRS 41.0322(1). Although appellant asserts on appeal that his complaint
was not tort-based, and thus, was not subject to NRS 41.0322 or NRS
209.243(1), appellant has waived this argument because the argument
was not raised in the district court, and we therefore decline to consider it
for the first time on appeal. See Nye Cnty. v. Washoe Med. Gtr., 108 Nev.
490, 493, 835 P.2d 780, 782 (1992) (holding that failure to raise an
argument in district court generally waives the opportunity to present the
argument on appeal).
Finally, appellant argues that he was not provided proper•
notice to attend or prepare for the hearing on the motion to dismiss.
Contrary to appellant's assertion, however, the record demonstrates that
respondents provided appellant with two notices regarding the scheduled
hearing, that appellant filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss and
that he was able to present oral argument to the court. Thus, this
argument is without merit.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) I947A
For the reasons set forth above, we conclude that the district
court did not err in dismissing the underlying action, Buzz Stew, 124 Nev.
at 228, 181 P.3d at 672, and we therefore
ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.'
PI! 069.4. WI J.
Pickering
120.er
Parfagu&rire
cc: Hon. Ronald J. Israel, District Judge
Terrence Brothers
Attorney General/Carson City
Eighth District Court Clerk
'In light of the basis for our resolution of this matter, it is not
necessary to reach appellant's remaining arguments.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) 1947A