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  Refer to Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished decisions.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-37970

MANUEL GARCIA a/k/a

MANUEL J. GARCIA,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

ROBERTO J. PURDY and LINDA

PURDY,

Defendants-Appellees.

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF SAN MIGUEL COUNTY
Flora Gallegos, District Judge

Manuel J. Garcia

Las Vegas, NM

Pro Se Appellant

Egolf + Ferlic + Martinez + Harwood, LLC

Mark A. Cox

Kristina Martinez

Santa Fe, NM

for Appellees

DECISION

HENDERSON, Judge.

{1}       Plaintiff Manuel Garcia appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Defendants Roberto and Linda Purdy (collectively, Defendants) in a quiet title action. On appeal, Plaintiff raises many arguments, the main argument being that the district court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of Defendants.

{2}       “[I]t is the appellant’s burden to demonstrate, by providing well-supported and clear arguments, that the district court has erred.” Premier Tr. of Nev., Inc. v. City of Albuquerque, 2021-NMCA-004, ¶ 10, 482 P.3d 1261. We conclude, after a thorough and careful review of the briefing, the authorities cited therein, the record of both the case before us, and the related cases the district court took judicial notice of, that Plaintiff has not demonstrated an error on the part of the district court that requires reversal. See Farmers, Inc., v. Dal Mach. & Fabricating, Inc., 1990-NMSC-100, ¶ 8, 111 N.M. 6, 800 P.2d 1063 (“The presumption upon review favors the correctness of the [district] court’s actions. Appellant must affirmatively demonstrate its assertion of error.”); see also Jones v. City of Albuquerque Police Dep’t, 2020-NMSC-013, ¶ 27, 470 P.3d 252 (“Under the right for any reason doctrine, we may affirm the district court’s order on grounds not relied upon by the district court if those grounds do not require us to look beyond the factual allegations that were raised and considered below.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)).

{3}       Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order granting summary judgment and denying Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration.

{4}       IT IS SO ORDERED.

SHAMMARA H. HENDERSON, Judge

WE CONCUR:

J. MILES HANISEE, Chief Judge

ZACHARY A. IVES, Judge