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 Plaintiff, James Litteral, pro se, initiated a legal action against Defendants GEO Group, Inc. (GEO), Blackstone Group LP (Blackstone), Correctional Medical Services (CMS), and unknown medical and security staff, seeking redress for claims that were not specified in the provided text. The nature of the claims and the events leading to the lawsuit are not detailed in the available information.

Procedural History

• District Court of Guadalupe County, August 7, 2012: Claims against Blackstone and GEO were dismissed.
• District Court of Guadalupe County, October 22, 2012: Order granting CMS' motion for joinder and dismissing Plaintiff's claims against CMS.

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff: Argued against the district court's dismissal of his claims, filing objections and motions for reconsideration, seeking to correct what he perceived as the judge's errors and to reverse the orders of dismissal.
• Defendants: Specific arguments made by the Defendants are not detailed in the provided text, but it is implied that they sought dismissal of the Plaintiff's claims, which was granted by the district court.

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court's dismissal of the Plaintiff's claims against Defendants GEO, Blackstone, and CMS was proper.
• Whether the Plaintiff's objections and motions for reconsideration were sufficient to prevent the dismissal orders from being final and appealable.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal for lack of a final order, indicating that the Plaintiff's objections and motions for reconsideration left outstanding matters to be ruled upon by the district court.

Reasons

• JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge (CYNTHIA A. FRY, Judge, LINDA M. VANZI, Judge concurring):
  The Court of Appeals, led by Judge Wechsler with Judges Fry and Vanzi concurring, determined that the Plaintiff's appeal was premature due to the existence of outstanding objections and motions for reconsideration that the district court had yet to rule on. The Court clarified that under NMSA 1978, 39-1-1, and subsequent amendments to the rules of civil procedure, post-judgment motions do not automatically deny if not granted within thirty days, meaning the time for filing notices of appeal runs from the entry of an order expressly disposing of such motions. The Court disagreed with the Plaintiff's interpretation that Section 39-1-1 had been voided by the rules of civil procedure, explaining the current procedural posture regarding post-judgment motions and the timing for appeals. Despite acknowledging the Plaintiff's frustration and his limited access to legal resources, the Court emphasized the necessity of a final order for jurisdictional purposes and advised that the Plaintiff could file another notice of appeal upon the entry of a final order by the district court.