Court of Appeals of New Mexico
Decision Information
Rule Set 12 - Rules of Appellate Procedure - cited by 9,435 documents
Rule Set 1 - Rules of Civil Procedure for the District Courts - cited by 4,506 documents
Citations - New Mexico Appellate Reports
Albuquerque Redi-Mix, Inc. v. Scottsdale Ins. Co. - cited by 77 documents
Kelly Inn No. 102, Inc. v. Kapnison - cited by 333 documents
Decision Content
WEISNER V. SAN JUAN COUNTY
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 Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.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.
KENT M. WEISNER,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
SAN JUAN COUNTY NM BOARD
OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS and
OFFICE OF COUNTY CLERK,
Defendant-Appellee.
No. 31,832
COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW MEXICO
March 14, 2012
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF SAN JUAN COUNTY, Judge
Thomas J. Hynes, District Judge
COUNSEL
Kent M.Weisner, Kirtland, NM, Pro se Appellant
Douglas A. Echols, Aztec, NM, for Appellee
JUDGES
TIMOTHY L. GARCIA, Judge. WE CONCUR: MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Judge, LINDA M. VANZI, Judge
MEMORANDUM OPINION
GARCIA, Judge.
Plaintiff is appealing, pro se, from a district court order dismissing his complaint. We issued a calendar notice proposing to dismiss. Plaintiff has responded with a memorandum in opposition. Not persuaded by Plaintiff’s arguments, we dismiss the appeal.
Plaintiff is appealing from a district court order dismissing his complaint. The judgment was filed on December 1, 2011. [RP 63] On December 7, 2011, Plaintiff filed a motion to reconsider that order. [RP 64] Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal from the underlying order on December 1, 2011. [RP 67] There is no indication in the record proper that the district court ruled on Plaintiff’s motion to reconsider, and Plaintiff’s memorandum in opposition indicates that no ruling has been entered. The district court was required to rule on the post-judgment motion and it was not deemed denied by the passage of time. See Rule 1-059(E) NMRA; Albuquerque Redi-Mix, Inc. v. Scottsdale Ins. Co., 2007-NMSC-051, ¶ 15, 142 N.M. 527, 168 P.3d 99 (holding that a Rule 1-059(E) motion is not subject to automatic denial). Thus, we conclude that Plaintiff’s appeal is premature without an order denying his motion. See generally Kelly Inn No. 102, Inc. v. Kapnison, 113 N.M. 231, 236, 824 P.2d 1033, 1038 (1992) (discussing principles of finality).
For these reasons, we dismiss Plaintiff’s appeal as premature.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
TIMOTHY L. GARCIA, Judge
WE CONCUR:
MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Judge
LINDA M. VANZI, Judge