ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL
This is a pro se appeal from a district court order entered after a hearing in a child custody matter. Second Judicial District Court, Family Division, Washoe County; Cynthia Lu, Judge.
Review of the notice of appeal, informal brief, and documents before this court reveal a jurisdictional defect. While appellant Clodualdo Jasso-Martinez does not identify an order he is appealing from in his notice of appeal, in his informal brief he indicates he is appealing from an August 22, 2023, district court order. No order was entered on that date, but an order was entered on August 23, 2023. The August 23 order directs that all prior orders remain in effect; directs respondent Maria Elena Rodriguez to file a response to Jasso-Martinezs motion to modify custody or visitation; and provides that because Jasso-Martinez has terminated virtual, supervised visits with the parties’ children, he shall not have any contact or visits with the children until further order of the court.
The challenged order is not appealable as a final judgment under NRAP 3A(b)(1) because the issue of modification to custody or visitation is still pending before the district court. See Lee v. GNLV Corp., 116 Nev. 424, 426, 996 P.2d 416, 417 (2000) (“[A] final judgment is one that disposes of all the issues presented in the case, and leaves nothing for the future consideration of the court, except for post-judgment issues such as attorneys fees and costs.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). The order is also not appealable under NRAP 3A(b)(7) because it does not finally establish or modify custody of the parties’ minor children. And no other statute or court rule appears to permit an appeal from the August 23 order. See Brown v. MHC Stagecoach, LLC, 129 Nev. 343, 345, 301 P.3d 850, 851 (2013) (providing that this court “may only consider appeals authorized by statute or court rule”). Accordingly, this court lacks jurisdiction and we
ORDER this appeal DISMISSED.
Stiglich, J.
Pickering, J.
Parraguirre, J.