Preview:

1 2 3 4 5 6

This memorandum opinion was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Reports. Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated errors or other deviations from the official paper version filed by the Court of Appeals and does not include the filing date.

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

7 DUSTY STONE, 8 9 v. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 COUNTY OF QUAY, QUAY COUNTY, COMMISSIONERS FRANKLIN MCCAUSLAND, BILL CURRY, ROBERT LOPEZ, QUAY COUNTY ROAD DEPARTMENT, QUAY COUNTY MANAGER RICHARD PRIMROSE, and LARRY MOORE, QUAY COUNTY ROAD SUPERINTENDENT, Defendants-Appellees. Plaintiff-Appellant, NO. 30,711

19 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF QUAY COUNTY 20 Abigail P. Aragon, District Judge 21 Dusty Stone 22 San Jon, NM 23 Pro Se Appellant 24 Slease & Martinez, P.A. 25 William D. Slease 26 Albuquerque, NM 27 for Appellees

1 2 KENNEDY, Judge. 3

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Plaintiff appeals pro se from an order granting Defendants' motion for summary

4 judgment and an "order denying Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration, denying 5 Plaintiff's other motions and pleadings, granting Defendants' motion for attorneys' 6 fees and awarding Defendants' costs" ("reconsideration and cost order"). We 7 proposed to affirm in a notice of proposed summary disposition, and Plaintiff has filed 8 a timely memorandum in opposition and a motion to amend the docketing statement. 9 After duly considering the arguments made by Plaintiff in his memorandum in 10 opposition and the motion to amend the docketing statement, we remain unpersuaded 11 that affirmance is not the correct disposition in this case. Therefore, we affirm the 12 district court's orders and deny the motion to amend the docketing statement. 13 In his docketing statement, Plaintiff challenged the district court's order

14 granting summary judgment to Defendants claiming the district court erred in failing 15 to: (1) comply with the Rules of Civil Procedure; (2) require all parties to sign the 16 order of summary judgment; (3) conduct a presentment hearing; (4) consider all the 17 pleadings filed in this matter; and (5) find that there were material issues of fact 18 precluding summary judgment. [DS 3] We proposed to affirm and to hold that 19 despite Plaintiff's numerous filings, he failed to make the requisite showing of a

2

1 genuine issue of fact precluding summary judgment in favor of Defendants. [RP 2842 286, 305-309] See Dow v. Chilili Coop. Ass'n, 105 N.M. 52, 55, 728 P.2d 462, 465 3 (1986) (stating that a party opposing may not simply argue that evidentiary facts 4 requiring a trial on the merits may exist, "nor may [a party] rest upon the allegations 5 of the complaint."); Schwartzman v. Schwartzman Packing Co., 99 N.M. 436, 441, 6 659 P.2d 888, 893 (1983) (stating that the "party opposing a motion for summary 7 judgment [must] make an affirmative showing by affidavit or other admissible 8 evidence that there is a genuine issue of material fact" precluding summary judgment). 9 In his memorandum in opposition, Plaintiff contends that we failed to address

10 his contention that the district court refused to comply with Rule 1-056 NMRA by 11 failing to conduct a presentment hearing or to require all the parties to sign the 12 summary judgment order. [MIO 1] We disagree because, as we observed in our 13 earlier notice, Plaintiff was given an opportunity but refused to sign the order granting 14 summary judgment to Defendants. [RP 346] Instead, he filed numerous objections 15 that appear to be without merit, including his own motion for summary judgment filed 16 months after the district court had already entered summary judgment in Defendants' 17 favor. [RP 319, 361, 412, 426, 449, 463, 476] 18 Plaintiff also reiterates the arguments he made in his docketing statement

19 challenging the propriety of the district court's decision. [MIO 2-4] However, his

3

1 reiteration of those arguments fails to convince us that the analysis contained in our 2 proposed disposition is in error. Therefore, for the reasons set forth in our previous 3 notice, we remain of the opinion that the district court did not err in granting summary 4 judgment in favor of Defendants. Cf. Hennessy v. Duryea, 1998-NMCA-036,

Download CA30711.pdf

New Mexico Law