Court of Appeals of New Mexico
Decision Information
Rule Set 12 - Rules of Appellate Procedure - cited by 9,258 documents
Citations - New Mexico Appellate Reports
Dillard v. Dillard - cited by 58 documents
State v. Vigil - cited by 72 documents
Decision Content
CORSE V. BAILEY
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 Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.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.
GARY RAY CORSE,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
MEGAN BAILEY,
Defendant-Appellee.
NO. A-1-CA-37534
COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW MEXICO
February 5, 2019
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY, Carl
J. Butkus, District Judge
COUNSEL
Gary Ray Corse, Albuquerque, NM, Pro Se Appellant
Megan Bailey, Philadelphia, PA, Pro Se Appellee
JUDGES
LINDA M. VANZI, Judge. WE CONCUR: JULIE J. VARGAS, Judge, KRISTINA BOGARDUS, Judge
MEMORANDUM OPINION
VANZI, Judge.
{1} Plaintiff, who is self-represented, appeals from a district court order dismissing his on-the-record appeal from metropolitan court on the ground that he failed to file a statement of issues. We issued a calendar notice proposing to affirm. Plaintiff has responded with a memorandum in opposition. Not persuaded, we affirm.
{2} Our calendar notice proposed to hold that, because Plaintiff failed to file any issues in the district court, he has abandoned issues that could have been raised in this Court. See State v. Vigil, 2014-NMCA-096, ¶ 18, 336 P.3d 380. Plaintiff argues that he was prevented by the district court from filing things below. This assertion is not supported by the record, at least with respect to the filing of a statement of issues. To the contrary, the district court extended the time for filing the statement of issues and instructed Plaintiff that the appeal would be dismissed unless he met the new deadline. [RP 182-83] To the extent that Plaintiff believed that court staff was preventing him from making the requisite filing, he had an obligation to create a record on the matter. See Dillard v. Dillard, 1986-NMCA-088, ¶¶ 6-7, 104 N.M. 763, 727 P.2d 71 (observing that it is the duty of the appellant to provide a record adequate to review the issues on appeal). Because he did not do so, we affirm.
{3} IT IS SO ORDERED.
LINDA M. VANZI, Judge
WE CONCUR:
JULIE J. VARGAS, Judge
KRISTINA BOGARDUS, Judge