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, acting pro se, appealed from a judgment entered in favor of the Defendant, his former supervisor at the Central Records Division for the State of New Mexico Department of Corrections. The appeal challenges the district court's decision, but specific details of the underlying dispute are not provided in the memorandum opinion.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff: Argued that his claims were preserved for appeal through various means including his attorney's questioning of the defendant, records proper, and his deposition. He also referenced calendar notices, his memorandum in opposition to the first notice, and his docketing statement as evidence of preservation (MIO 2, 3-4).
• Defendant: Specific arguments made by the Defendant are not detailed in the memorandum opinion.

Legal Issues

• Whether the Plaintiff properly preserved his claims for review on appeal.

Disposition

• The judgment entered by the district court in favor of the Defendant was affirmed.

Reasons

• The Court, consisting of Judges Michael D. Bustamante, James J. Wechsler, and Jonathan B. Sutin, unanimously found the Plaintiff's arguments unpersuasive. The Court highlighted that the Plaintiff failed to demonstrate how his claims were brought to the attention of the district court in a manner that would allow for a ruling on those claims. The opinion emphasized the importance of specifically alerting the district court to a claim of error to allow for correction, response from the opposing party, and the creation of a sufficient record for appellate review. The Plaintiff's inability to show that his claims were properly preserved at the district court level led to the conclusion that the issues raised on appeal could not be considered, resulting in the affirmation of the district court's judgment.