McNatt v. City of Albuquerque

This decision of the New Mexico Court of Appeals was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports. Refer to Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished decisions. Electronic decisions may contain computer- generated errors or other deviations from the official version filed by the Court of Appeals.

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO No. A-1-CA-42938 ROY MCNATT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF ALBUQUERQUE, Defendant-Appellee.

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY Denise Barela Shepherd, District Court Judge Roy McNatt Albuquerque, NM Pro Se Appellant City of Albuquerque Lauren Keefe, City Attorney Ashlee M. Wright, Assistant City Attorney Albuquerque, NM for Appellee MEMORANDUM OPINION WRAY, Judge. {1} Having reviewed Plaintiff Roy McNatt’s untimely motion for rehearing, the opinion filed April 16, 2026 is hereby withdrawn and this opinion is substituted in its place. The motion for rehearing is otherwise denied. {2} In our calendar notice, we requested that in any response, Plaintiff must explain why the district court’s decision was wrong, how the evidence that Plaintiff claimed was not reviewed would have established compliance with the notice requirements in the New Mexico Tort Claims Act, NMSA 1978, § 41-4-16(A) (1977), and how the record established proper service under Rule 1-004(H) NMRA. [CN 2-3] While Plaintiff’s motion for rehearing provides an explanation for late filings, we remain unpersuaded that Plaintiff has demonstrated error by the district court. See Farmers, Inc. v. Dal Mach. & Fabricating, Inc., 1990-NMSC-100, ¶ 8, 111 N.M. 6, 800 P.2d 1063 (“The presumption upon review favors the correctness of the trial court’s actions. Appellant must affirmatively demonstrate its assertion of error.”). We therefore affirm. {3} IT IS SO ORDERED.

KATHERINE A. WRAY, Judge WE CONCUR: J. MILES HANISEE, Judge JENNIFER L. ATTREP, Judge