ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL
Appellant proposed in the docketing statement that the order is appealable as a special order after final judgment. This court noted that it was not clear how the writ of garnishment alters or affects the rights and obligations of the parties arising from the underlying foreign judgment and directed appellant to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. See Gumm v. Mainor, 118 Nev. 912, 920, 59 P.3d 1220, 1225 (2002) (holding that, to be appealable under NRAP 3A(b)(2), a special order made after final judgment “must be an order affecting the rights of some party to the action, growing out of the judgment previously entered”). Appellant argues that the district court applied the wrong standards in holding that respondent is entitled to enforce the writ of garnishment against her and cites NRS 31.460, providing for an appeal from any final judgment in a garnishment proceeding. The final judgment was the issuance of the writ of execution. Appellant fails to demonstrate that the order alters the rights and obligations of the parties arising from the issuance of the writ. An order merely enforcing a prior appealable order does not affect the rights of a party growing out of the final judgment and is not appealable as a special order after final judgment. See Gumm at 912, 920, 59 P.3d at 1225. This court lacks jurisdiction, and
ORDERS this appeal DISMISSED.