Saunders v. Rodriguez
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
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 Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.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 18 WE CONCUR: ______________________________ MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Chief Judge 19 _________________________________ 20 MICHAEL D. BUSTAMANTE, Judge 2 1 _________________________________ 2 JONATHAN B. SUTIN, Judge 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
