Brothers v. Fletcher

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