Corse v. Bailey ( 2019 )


Menu:
  •      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    Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum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.
    1         IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO
    2 GARY RAY CORSE,
    3          Plaintiff-Appellant,
    4 v.                                                                    NO. A-1-CA-37534
    5 MEGAN BAILEY,
    6          Defendant-Appellee.
    7 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY
    8 Carl J. Butkus, District Judge
    9 Gary Ray Corse
    10 Albuquerque, NM
    11 Pro Se Appellant
    12 Megan Bailey
    13 Philadelphia, PA
    14 Pro Se Appellee
    15                                 MEMORANDUM OPINION
    16 VANZI, Judge.
    17   {1}    Plaintiff, who is self-represented, appeals from a district court order dismissing
    18 his on-the-record appeal from metropolitan court on the ground that he failed to file
    1 a statement of issues. We issued a calendar notice proposing to affirm. Plaintiff has
    2 responded with a memorandum in opposition. Not persuaded, we affirm.
    3   {2}   Our calendar notice proposed to hold that, because Plaintiff failed to file any
    4 issues in the district court, he has abandoned issues that could have been raised in this
    5 Court. See State v. Vigil, 
    2014-NMCA-096
    , ¶ 18, 
    336 P.3d 380
    . Plaintiff argues that
    6 he was prevented by the district court from filing things below. This assertion is not
    7 supported by the record, at least with respect to the filing of a statement of issues. To
    8 the contrary, the district court extended the time for filing the statement of issues and
    9 instructed Plaintiff that the appeal would be dismissed unless he met the new deadline.
    10 [RP 182-83] To the extent that Plaintiff believed that court staff was preventing him
    11 from making the requisite filing, he had an obligation to create a record on the matter.
    12 See Dillard v. Dillard, 
    1986-NMCA-088
    , ¶¶ 6-7, 
    104 N.M. 763
    , 
    727 P.2d 71
    13 (observing that it is the duty of the appellant to provide a record adequate to review
    14 the issues on appeal). Because he did not do so, we affirm.
    15   {3}   IT IS SO ORDERED.
    16                                          __________________________________
    17                                          LINDA M. VANZI, Judge
    18 WE CONCUR:
    19 _________________________________
    20 JULIE J. VARGAS, Judge
    2
    1 _________________________________
    2 KRISTINA BOGARDUS, Judge
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: A-1-CA-37534

Filed Date: 2/5/2019

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 3/15/2019