Najibi v. Halliburton Energy

Opinion

This decision was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports. Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of non-precedential dispositions. Please also note that this electronic decision may contain computer-generated errors or other deviations from the official paper version filed by the Supreme Court.

3 Worker-Appellant,

4 v. No. 36,208

5 HALLIBURTON ENERGY SERVICE, and

7 Employer/Insurer-Appellees.

9 David Skinner, Workers’ Compensation Judge

10 Michael Najibi 11 Las Cruces, NM

12 Pro se Appellant

13 Butt, Thornton & Baeher PC 14 M. Scott Owen 15 Albuquerque, NM

16 for Appellees

18 GARCIA, Judge.

19 {1} Worker-Appellant Michael Najibi (“Worker”) appeals from the workers’ 1 compensation judge’s (“WCJ”) amended compensation order dismissing his

2 complaint with prejudice. We previously issued a notice of proposed summary

3 disposition in which we proposed to dismiss. Worker has filed a memorandum in

4 opposition. After due consideration, we remain unpersuaded.

5 {2} As we previously observed, the filing of a timely notice of appeal is a

6 mandatory precondition to this Court’s jurisdiction. In re Yalkut, 2008-NMSC-009,

7 ¶ 24, 143 N.M. 387, 176 P.3d 1119 (per curiam). In this case, Worker filed his notice

8 of appeal nearly three months late. We therefore proposed to dismiss. See, e.g.,

9 Chavez v. U-Haul Co. of N.M., 1997-NMSC-051, ¶¶ 19-22, 124 N.M. 165, 947 P.2d

10 122 (declining to hear an appeal filed thirty days late).

11 {3} In his memorandum in opposition Worker offers neither any basis for extending

12 the filing deadline, nor any justification for the delay. [MIO 1-4] Instead, we

13 understand Worker to invite the Court to consider the merits of the appeal

14 notwithstanding the untimely filing. [Id.] We decline.

15 {4} Accordingly, for the reasons stated above and in the notice of proposed

16 summary disposition, we dismiss.

17 {5} IT IS SO ORDERED.

18 ________________________________ 19 TIMOTHY L. GARCIA, Judge

2 1 WE CONCUR:

2 _______________________________ 3 MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Judge

4 _______________________________ 5 HENRY M. BOHNHOFF, Judge