ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL
Review of the notice of appeal and documents before this court reveals a jurisdictional defect. The challenged order is not substantively appealable. See Pengilly v. Rancho Santa Fe Homeowners Assn, 116 Nev. 646, 5 P.3d 569 (2000) (contempt orders that are ancillary to another proceeding are not appealable). And no other statute or court rule appears to authorize an appeal from the challenged order.
1
Brown v. MHC Stagecoach, LLC, 129 Nev. 343, 345, 301 P.3d 850, 851 (2013) (This court “may only consider appeals authorized by statute or court rule.”). Accordingly, this court lacks jurisdiction and
ORDERS this appeal DISMISSED.
2
FOOTNOTES
1
. In his notice of appeal, appellant also identifies the following: “Motion to Set Aside Orders From 10/26-10/27/2021, Pursuant to NRCP Rule 60(1)(4)(6); various findings related to a vexatious litigant determination, and a ruling regarding appellants “Emergency Motion for Temporary Emergency Change of Custody Pursuant to Huneycutt; And Related Relief.” The order resolving the motion to set aside appears to be the subject of appellants appeal in Docket No. 83726; the findings related to the vexatious litigant determination are not independently appealable, see Peck v. Crouser, 129 Nev. 120, 295 P.3d 586 (2013); and although the district court appears to have denied appellants emergency motion for a temporary change of custody in its minute order of January 10, 2022, the minute order is not appealable, see State, Div. of Child and. Family Servs v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 445, 454, 92 P.3d 1239, 1245 (2004) (“[D]ispositional court orders that are not administrative in nature, but deal with the procedural posture or merits of the underlying controversy, must be written, signed, and filed before they become effective”).
2
. Given this dismissal, this court takes no action in regard to the pro se motions filed on February 7 and 14, 2022.