required to hold a hearing, see EDCR 2.23(c), and nothing in the record
suggests that the district court factored appellant's nonattendance into its
decision. Instead, the district court considered the motion, appellant's
opposition thereto, even though it was untimely filed, and respondents'
reply, along with papers and evidence submitted by the parties. Finally,
to the extent that appellant contends that he has a viable cause of action
based on respondents seizing and destroying his personal property,
nothing in the record supports that assertion. Appellant pointed to
testimony from his criminal hearing during which a detective testified
that, along with a color copier, forged currency, and mail, which the police
seized, appellant's hotel room contained "a couple of backpacks" containing
"clothing" and "personal hygiene objects." Respondents disposed of the
clothing and hygiene objects for health and safety reasons, and appellant
cites to no authority to support that the disposal of those items was
improper under the circumstances. Accordingly, we
ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.
J.
Sait
V J.
Gibbons
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A e
cc: Hon. Jerry A. Wiese, District Judge
Carl Eric Krehnovi
L. Kirk Williams
Eighth District Court Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) 1 94 7A e