Court of Appeals of New Mexico
Decision Information
Rule Set 12 - Rules of Appellate Procedure - cited by 9,435 documents
Decision Content
GRAY V. SANDOVAL
This memorandum opinion was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Appellate 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 Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.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.
STACIE MARIE GRAY f/k/a,
STACIE MARIE SANDOVAL, n/k/a
STACIE MARIE IVEY,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
MARTIN CHRISTOPHER SANDOVAL,
Defendant-Appellee.
No. 33,348 consolidated with No. 33,670
COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW MEXICO
June 23, 2014
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY,
Elizabeth E. Whitefield, District Judge
COUNSEL
Stacie Marie Gray, Fort Collins, CO, Pro Se Appellant
Leslie Becker, Albuquerque, NM, for Appellee
JUDGES
M. MONICA ZAMORA, Judge. WE CONCUR: RODERICK T. KENNEDY, Chief Judge, TIMOTHY L. GARCIA, Judge
MEMORANDUM OPINION
ZAMORA, Judge.
{1} Appellant Stacie Marie Ivey [RP 300] (Mother) appeals pro se from the district court’s October 4, 2013, minute order [RP 370] and the February 17, 2014, final minute order [Ct.App.File, blue tab] that address matters relating to child support, travel expenses, and attorney fees. Our second calendar notice proposed to affirm.
{2} Mother did not file a second memorandum in opposition to the second notice. Instead, Mother initiated a second appeal and filed a docketing statement in this Court in Ct.App.No. 33,670 (Case #2), where she appeals from the same district court orders at issue in this case. Because Mother is appealing from the same orders in both this case and in Case #2, we HEREBY CONSOLIDATE the appeals under this case, Ct.App.No. 33,348.
{3} As for the merits of Mother’s arguments, for the same reasons extensively discussed in our second calendar notice, we affirm. Mother did not file a memorandum in opposition to our second notice and we are not persuaded by her arguments. We therefore affirm.
{4} IT IS SO ORDERED.
M. MONICA ZAMORA, Judge
WE CONCUR:
RODERICK T. KENNEDY, Chief Judge
TIMOTHY L. GARCIA, Judge