Aymann v. Peterson ( 2015 )

 toward appellant. Appellant also argues that the chief district court judge
is "strongly pro-woman" and "is not competent or qualified" to oversee the
dispute between appellant and the district court judge, and therefore
should not have decided the motion to disqualify. Having reviewed
appellant's pro se opening brief and the record on appeal, we conclude that
appellant has not shown that the district court abused its discretion in
denying his disqualification motion. Goldman v. Bryan, 104 Nev. 644,
649, 764 P.2d 1296, 1299 (1988) (holding that this court reviews orders
denying disqualification for a clear abuse of discretion, that judges are
"presumed not to be biased," and the party seeking disqualification bears
the burden of proving that disqualification is warranted), disavowed on
other grounds by Halverson. v. Hardcastle, 123 Nev. 245, 163 P.3d 428(2007). Thus, Judge Kishner properly remained assigned to the
underlying matter and no relief is warranted with regard to the order
denying the motion to disqualify.'
Appellant also challenges the district court's dismissal of his
action for failure to bring it to trial within five years. See NRCP 41(e). We
perceive no error in the district court's dismissal of the action as
appellant's complaint was filed on March 26, 2009, and therefore more
than five years had passed when the district court dismissed the action on
September 18, 2014. See NRCP 41(e); see also Allyn v. McDonald, 117
Nev. 907, 912, 34 P.3d 584, 587 (2001) ("Except in very limited
circumstances, we uphold NRCP 41(e) dismissals without regard to the
plaintiffs reasons for allowing the mandatory period to lapse."); Great W.
'Appellant's arguments regarding the chief district court judge are
unsupported, lack merit, and do not provide a basis for relief.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1047A e
Land & Cattle Corp v. Sixth Judicial Dist. Court, 86 Nev. 282, 285, 467
P.2d 1019, 1021 (1970) ("Rule 41, as written and construed, does not
contemplate an examination of the equities. Any other construction
would destroy the mandatory 5-year dismissal rule and make the
determination a matter of trial court discretion."). As appellant has not
demonstrated any basis for reversal in Docket No. 66774, we affirm the
district court's dismissal of appellant's action. 2 The appeal in Docket No.
66676 is dismissed.
It is so ORDERED.
, J.
Gibbons
Pickering
cc: Hon. Joanna Kishner, District Judge
James R. Aymann
Alexander L. Mazzia, Jr.
Eighth District Court Clerk
2 In light of this disposition, appellant's remaining arguments are
moot.
SUPREME COLMT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) 1947A er,