This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.
Facts
The Plaintiff, a self-represented litigant, brought claims against the Defendants for assault, defamation, "outrageous conduct," intentional infliction of emotional harm, false arrest, malicious prosecution, abuse of process, and conspiracy. The case involves multiple orders and judgments from the district court related to these claims (para 1).
Procedural History
- District Court of Rio Arriba County: Granted summary judgment in favor of Defendants Johnson and Jolly, dismissing Plaintiff's claims with prejudice (para 2).
Parties' Submissions
- Plaintiff-Appellant: Argued that the district court erred in its proceedings and that the proposed disposition by the Court of Appeals was incorrect. The Plaintiff reiterated previous contentions without presenting new facts, law, or arguments (paras 2-3).
- Defendants-Appellees: Supported the Court of Appeals' proposed disposition to affirm the district court's decision, arguing that the Plaintiff failed to demonstrate any error in the district court's rulings (para 1).
Legal Issues
- Whether the district court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of Defendants Johnson and Jolly.
- Whether the Plaintiff demonstrated any error in the district court's orders dismissing her claims with prejudice.
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision to grant summary judgment in favor of Defendants Johnson and Jolly and to dismiss the Plaintiff's claims with prejudice (para 4).
Reasons
Per Hanisee J. (Henderson and Wray JJ. concurring): The Court of Appeals found that the Plaintiff failed to demonstrate any error by the district court in its rulings. The Plaintiff's memorandum in opposition did not present any new facts, law, or arguments that could persuade the Court that its notice of proposed disposition was incorrect. The Plaintiff's reiteration of previous contentions without pointing out specific substantive errors did not meet the burden of demonstrating error in a summary calendar case. The Court emphasized that mere disagreement with the proposed conclusions is insufficient to establish error (paras 2-3).