Saunders v. Rodriguez
This text of Saunders v. Rodriguez (Saunders v. Rodriguez) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New Mexico Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
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 Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.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 NICKIE SAUNDERS,
3 Petitioner-Appellant,
4 v. NO. 34,575
5 KAITLYNN RODRIGUEZ and 6 ROBERT GARCIA,
7 Respondents-Appellees.
8 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF EDDY COUNTY 9 Raymond L. Romero, District Judge
10 Nickie Saunders 11 Carlsbad, NM
12 Pro Se Appellant
13 Kaitlyn Rodriguez 14 Robert Garcia 15 Carlsbad, NM
16 Pro Se Appellees
17 MEMORANDUM OPINION
18 VIGIL, Judge.
19 {1} Petitioner-Appellant Nickie Saunders (Petitioner) appeals from the district 1 court’s order denying her petition to be appointed as the kinship guardian for Donovan
2 H. (Child). On May 21, 2015, this Court issued a notice of proposed disposition
3 wherein we proposed to affirm the district court’s decision. Child’s mother filed a
4 document with this Court asserting that she no longer consents to Petitioner being
5 appointed guardian of Child. This information, however, was not before the district
6 court and this Court, therefore, will not consider it on appeal. See State v. Reynolds,
7 1990-NMCA-122, ¶ 16, 111 N.M. 263, 804 P.2d 1082 (“Matters outside the record
8 present no issue for review.”). Petitioner, on the other hand, has not filed a
9 memorandum opposing this Court’s notice of proposed disposition, and the time for
10 doing so has now passed. See Frick v. Veazey, 1993-NMCA-119, ¶ 2, 116 N.M. 246,
11 861 P.2d 287 (“Failure to file a memorandum in opposition constitutes acceptance of
12 the disposition proposed in the calendar notice.”). Accordingly, we affirm the district
13 court’s decision for the reasons articulated in this Court’s notice of proposed
14 disposition.
15 {2} IT IS SO ORDERED.
16 ______________________________ 17 MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Chief Judge 18 WE CONCUR:
19 _________________________________ 20 MICHAEL D. BUSTAMANTE, Judge
2 1 _________________________________ 2 JONATHAN B. SUTIN, Judge
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Saunders v. Rodriguez, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/saunders-v-rodriguez-nmctapp-2015.