Court of Appeals of New Mexico

This decision of the New Mexico Court of Appeals was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports.  Refer to Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished decisions.  Electronic decisions may contain computer-generated errors or other deviations from the official version filed by the Court of Appeals.

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

No. A-1-CA-39417

JUSTIN MILLER,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

THE GEO GROUP, INC. and

DWAYNE SANTISTEVAN,

Defendants-Appellees.

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF LEA COUNTY
Michael H. Stone, District Judge

Justin J. Miller

Hobbs, NM

Pro Se Appellant

YLAW, P.C.

Michael S. Jahner

Albuquerque, NM

for Appellees

MEMORANDUM OPINION

BOGARDUS, Judge.

{1}       Plaintiff appeals from the district court’s order denying Plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the pleadings and granting Defendants’ cross-motion for judgment on the pleadings. We entered a notice of proposed disposition, proposing to affirm. In response, Plaintiff filed a “[m]emorandum in [r]esponse,” stating that “Plaintiff must concede that the district court did not err in granting . . . Defendants[’ m]otion for [j]udgment on the [p]leadings.” [MIO PDF 1] Plaintiff also states “the current ruling should, unfortunately, stand.” [MIO PDF 2] We note that Plaintiff’s response to the calendar notice does not point out any errors of fact or law in the notice. See Hennessy v. Duryea, 1998-NMCA-036, ¶ 24, 124 N.M. 754, 955 P.2d 683 (“Our courts have repeatedly held that, in summary calendar cases, the burden is on the party opposing the proposed disposition to clearly point out errors in fact or law.”). We therefore construe the response as a memorandum in support of the proposed disposition.

{2}       Accordingly, and for the reasons stated in our notice of proposed disposition, we affirm. 

{3}       IT IS SO ORDERED.

KRISTINA BOGARDUS, Judge

WE CONCUR:

BRIANA H. ZAMORA, Judge

SHAMMARA H. HENDERSON, Judge