MICHAEL STEVE COX, No. 60637 

Appellant, 

vs. 

DR. ROBERT BANNISTER; 

CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO; 

GREG COX; TERRI JACOBS; LINDA 

MAESTES; AL PERALTA; REX 

REED; GREG SMITH; AND CRYSTAL 

WILLIS, 

Respondents. 

MICHAEL STEVE COX, 

Appellant, 

vs. 

THE STATE OF NEVADA, 

Respondent. 

No. 61322 

ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE 

These are four proper person appeals from various district 

court orders. The appeals are not consolidated. 

In Docket No. 60056, appellant challenges a district court 

order dismissing his civil rights complaint without prejudice on its own 

motion under NRCP 16.1(e)(2) , based, among other things, on appellant's 

failure to file a case conference report as required by NRCP 16.1(c). 

Having considered the appeal statement and record below, we conclude 

that the district court properly examined appellant's failure to comply 

with NRCP 16.1(c) by using the pertinent factors set forth in Arnold v. 

Kip, 123 Nev. 410, 415-16, 168 P.3d 1050, 1053-54 (2007), and that the 

district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that the dismissal 

of appellant's complaint was warranted. Accordingly, we affirm the 

district court order dismissing the complaint without prejudice. NRCP 

16.1(e)(2); Arnold, 123 Nev. at 415-16, 168 P.3d at 1053-54. 

2 
SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) I947A 

Docket No. 60151 is also an appeal from a district court order 

dismissing a civil rights complaint without prejudice based mainly on 

appellant's failure to comply with NRCP 16.1(c)'s case conference report 

requirement. Having considered the appeal statement and record on 

appeal, we conclude that the district court properly applied NRCP 

16.1(e)(2), and we therefore affirm the order of dismissal. See Arnold, 123 

Nev. at 415-16, 168 P.3d 1053-54. 

In Docket No. 60637, appellant challenges the district court's 

order dismissing his complaint on a variety of grounds. To the extent that 

the district court dismissed appellant's complaint with prejudice for 

failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, having reviewed 

the appeal statement and record on appeal, we discern no error in this 

determination. See Buzz Stew, LLC v. City of N. Las Vegas, 124 Nev. 224, 

228, 181 P.3d 670, 672 (2008). With regard to appellant's remaining 

claims, the district court dismissed them without prejudice primarily for 

failing to comply with NRCP 16.1(c)'s case conference report requirement. 

Having reviewed the documents before us, we discern no abuse of 

discretion in the dismissal of these remaining claims on this basis. NRCP 

16.1(e)(2); Arnold, 123 Nev. at 415-16, 168 P.3d 1053-54. Accordingly, we 

affirm the district court's order. 

In Docket No. 61322, appellant challenges a district court's 

order granting summary judgment on his civil rights claims. As noted in 

the district court order granting summary judgment, appellant's one-page 

opposition to the motion for summary judgment failed to substantively 

respond to respondents' motion for summary judgment. See NRCP 56(e); 

Wood v. Safeway, Inc., 121 Nev. 724, 730-31, 121 P.3d 1026, 1030-31 

3 
SUPREME COUFtT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A 

4 

(2005) (holding that the nonmoving party must set forth specific facts 

demonstrating genuine factual issues to avoid summary judgment). In 

light of this failure, we necessarily affirm the district court's decision to 

grant summary judgment.' 

It is so ORDERED. 2 

J. 

Parraguirre 

cc: Seventh Judicial District Court Dept. 2 

Hon. Jessie Elizabeth Walsh, District Judge 

Michael Steve Cox 

Attorney General/Carson City 

White Pine County Clerk 

Eighth Judicial District Court 

'We have considered appellant's other arguments in these appeals 

and conclude they lack merit and do not warrant reversal. 

2The clerk of this court shall file appellant's request for submission, 

which was provisionally received on December 20, 2012, in Docket No. 

60151. In light of this disposition, we deny as moot all outstanding 

requests for relief,