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 an appeal by Plaintiff Shawn Venegas against a district court order that dismissed his complaint. The appeal was filed after the deadline set by the court rules, leading to a proposal to dismiss the appeal for being untimely. The Plaintiff responded with a memorandum in opposition, focusing on the timeliness of the docketing statement rather than the notice of appeal itself (paras 1-3).

Procedural History

• District Court of Sandoval County, September 27, 2021: Final judgment entered dismissing Plaintiff's complaint.

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff: Argued in a memorandum in opposition, focusing on the timeliness of the docketing statement rather than addressing the untimeliness of the notice of appeal (para 3).
• Defendant (N/A): The summary does not provide specific arguments made by the Defendant-Appellee regarding the appeal's dismissal.

Legal Issues

• Whether the Plaintiff's notice of appeal was filed within the required timeframe as mandated by court rules.
• Whether there were any unusual circumstances beyond the control of the Plaintiff that would justify considering an untimely appeal.

Disposition

• The appeal was dismissed due to the untimely filing of the notice of appeal, with no unusual circumstances presented to justify consideration of the late filing (para 4).

Reasons

• Per Jennifer L. Attrep, Chief Judge (Zachary A. Ives, Judge, and Gerald E. Baca, Judge, concurring): The court determined that the notice of appeal was filed past the deadline, making it untimely. The court also found that the Plaintiff did not present any unusual circumstances that would allow the court to exercise its discretion to consider the untimely appeal. The focus of the Plaintiff's opposition on the timeliness of the docketing statement rather than the notice of appeal did not address the court's concerns regarding the appeal's timeliness. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed (paras 1-4).