AI Generated Opinion Summaries

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 case involves the Plaintiff, a self-represented litigant, appealing against the district court's order which adopted the special master's recommendations and dismissed the case. The litigation appears to revolve around issues related to the Plaintiff's son and his son's mother, with the matter being referred to a domestic relations special master familiar with the circumstances due to previous litigation involving similar accusations (para 5).

Procedural History

• District Court of Sandoval County, January 27, 2023: The district court adopted the special master's recommendations and dismissed the case.

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellant: Argued that the Court of Appeals' proposed analysis was unintelligible, obfuscated the issues, and accused the Court of engaging in a conspiracy to cover up for the lower court, showing bias, and fabricating justifications to absolve the lower courts (paras 1-2).
• Defendant-Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in adopting the special master's recommendations and dismissing the case.
• Whether the Plaintiff demonstrated district court error in his memorandum in opposition to the Court of Appeals' notice proposing to affirm the district court's decision.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's order adopting the special master's recommendations and dismissing the case (para 6).

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals, comprising Judges Shammara H. Henderson, J. Miles Hanisee, and Jane B. Yohalem, unanimously decided to affirm the district court's decision. The Court found the Plaintiff's memorandum in opposition did not demonstrate district court error, noting that the Plaintiff's disrespectful advocacy was unacceptable and reminding him that pro se litigants are held to the same standards as members of the bar (para 2). The Court also highlighted that the Plaintiff's memorandum failed to correct deficiencies in the docketing statement or establish errors of law and fact in the district court's ruling (para 4). Furthermore, the Court reasoned that the Plaintiff did not demonstrate that the district court abused its discretion by referring the matter to a domestic relations special master, who was appointed due to familiarity with the circumstances from previous litigation involving similar accusations (para 5).