ORDER DENYING PETITION
This pro se original petition for a writ of mandamus challenges the court of appeals’ affirmance of a district court order denying a petition for judicial review in workers’ compensation matter. Having considered the petition, we are not persuaded that writ relief is warranted because petitioner had a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy available to him by way of his appeal in Docket No. 83330-COA. See NRS 34.330; Pan v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 120 Nev. 222, 224, 88 P.3d 840, 841 (2004) (explaining that writ relief is proper only when there is no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy at law and noting that an appeal is generally an adequate legal remedy that precludes writ relief). Accordingly, we
ORDER the petition DENIED.
1
Cadish, C.J.
Stiglich, J.
Herndon, J.
FOOTNOTES
1
. Petitioners “motion to amend filed writ of mandamus” is granted. This court has considered the amendments to the petition. Further, petitioners “motion to seal private & confidential information contained in filed document 24 - 18348” is granted. See SRCR 3(4)(d), (f), (h). The clerk of this court shall file the application to proceed in forma pauperis received on May 24, 2024, under seal. Petitioners “motion for pro bono counsel” is denied.