IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 1 NANCY LEWIS, 2 Plaintiff-Appellant, 3

v. NO. 29,184 4 RIO GRANDE SUN and 5 KEVIN BERSETT, 6 Defendants-Appellees. 7 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF RIO ARRIBA COUNTY 8 Timothy L. Garcia, District Judge 9 Daniel Yohalem 10 Santa Fe, NM 11 for Appellees 12 Nancy Lewis 13 Espanola, NM 14 Pro se Appellant 15

MEMORANDUM OPINION 16 KENNEDY, Judge. 17 Plaintiff-Appellant Nancy Lewis (Plainti ff), filing pro se, appeals the district 18 court’s judgment dismissing with prejudice four consolidated cases against 19 Defendants-Appellees Rio Gr ande Sun and Kevin Bersett (Defendants). We issued 20 a calendar notice proposing to summarily affirm the district court. Plaintiff filed a 212 timely memorandum in oppositi on, which we have duly considered. Remaining 1 unpersuaded, we affirm. 2 DISCUSSION 3 We address Plaintiff’s claims of error as we did in the calendar notice. We first 4 address Plaintiff’s contention that the di strict court erred by not ruling on several 5 motions. We then address Plaintiff’s challe nges to the district court’s rulings on her 6 claims concerning her contr act with Defendants, the ownership of her work, the 7 investigation of her bank account, and the public records’ request. 8 Turning to the first set of issues, Plain tiff continues to argue that the district 9 court erred in not ruling on se veral motions and not setting a trial date in compliance 10 with the rules of civil procedure. [DS 2; MIO 4-6] In our calendar notice, we noted 11 that the district court’s judgment indicated that the court ruled against Plaintiff on all 12 matters raised in the four consolidatedcases. [RP 144-46 (all cites to the record 13 proper for CV-2007-326 unless noted)] We therefore proposed to reject Plaintiff’s 14 argument that the district court failed to rule on her motion to disqualify and punish, 15 her motion to censure, and her motion for reconsideration of the order requiring her 16 to pay witness fees. We also proposed to conclude based on our review of the record 17 that there did not appear to be any merit to Plaintiff’s motions. Plaintiff does not 183 persuade us that our proposed disposition of these issues was incorrect. 1 Despite Plaintiff’s contention that th e court did not take testimony on the 2 motions concerning Defendant’s attorney , [MIO 4] the record indicates that 3 Defendants responded to Plaintiff’s moti ons by denying the allegations. [RP 73-74] 4 Plaintiff’s response also indicates that the parties discussed the allegations before the 5 court at a hearing. [MIO 5] In additi on, Plaintiff acknowledges that she did not 6 subpoena her witnesses to testify due to her misunderstanding about the trailing 7 docket, which is a matter we discuss further below. [DS 2; MIO 10-11] Accordingly, 8 we are not persuaded that the district court improperly prevented Plaintiff from 9 presenting any relevant, admissible eviden ce she might have to support her claims. 10 We continue to believe that the district court was entitled to consider the evidence 11 before it and reject Plaintiff’s version of events. See Buckingham v. Ryan, 1998- 12 NMCA-012, ¶ 10, 124 N.M. 498, 953 P.2d 33 (stating that when there is a conflict in 13 the evidence we defer to the trier of fact). 14 With respect to the motion for reconsider ation, we noted inour calendar notice 15 that it appeared that the district court relied on appropriategrounds for requiring 16 Plaintiff to pay witness fees. [RP 75-76] Weremain persuaded that Plaintiff’s motion 17 for reconsideration simply disagreed with the court’s ruling without offering any new 184 evidence or relevant argument. [Id. 111] As Plaintiff reiterates the same argument on 1 appeal, [MIO 5-6] we see no basis for reversing the di strict court’s ruling on this 2

matter. 3 Turning to Plaintiff’s contention that the district court erred by not setting a trial 4 date in compliance with Rule 1-016 NM RA and Rule 1-040 NMRA, [DS 2; MIO 6] 5 Plaintiff has not persuaded us that the distri ct court failed to comp ly with the rules of 6 civil procedure. As we noted, the district court properl y followed the rules by entering 7 a scheduling order and a pretrial order pursuant to Rule 1-016. [RP 82-84, 119-127] 8 Plaintiff concedes that she incorrectly assumed that a trial would not take place 9 because the matter was placed on a trailing docket. [MIO 6] To the extent that 10 Plaintiff is arguing that we should give her special consideration because she is 11 representing herself and lacks experience, Plaintiff is wrong. Pro se litigants must 12 comply with the rules and orders of the c ourt and will not be treated differently from 13 litigants with counsel. Bruce v. Lester , 1999-NMCA-051, ¶ 4, 127 N.M. 301, 980 14 P.2d 84. This extends to adequately procuring one’s evidence and adequately 15 presenting it to the Court. 16 We therefore affirm on all the matters raised in Plaintiff’s first issue. 17 We next turn to the numerous claims of error raised in Plaintiff’s second issue. 185 [DS 3] We first note that in our calendar notice we directed Plaintiff to set forth 1 evidence that supports both her position and the district court’s ruling. See Rule 12- 2 208(D)(3) NMRA (requiring “a concise, accurate statement of the case summarizing 3 all facts material to a consideration of the issues presented”); Thornton v. Gamble, 101 4 N.M. 764, 769, 688 P.2d 1268, 1273 (Ct. App. 1984) (same); Amrep Southwest, Inc. 5 v. Town of Bernalillo, 113 N.M. 19, 22, 821 P.2d 357, 360 (Ct. App. 1991) (stating 6 that where the appellant does not set forth the relevant evidence, a claim that the 7 evidence does not support the judgment will be re jected). We also requested Plaintiff 8 to set forth legal authority supporting her arguments. See In re Adoption of Doe , 100 9 N.M. 764, 765, 676 P.2d 1329, 1330 (1984) (holding that arguments unsupported by 10 citations to authority will not be reviewed). In response, Plaintiff only discusses facts 11 that she assumes are favorable to her positi on. [MIO 5-12] In addition, Plaintiff has 12 only provided citation to legal authority on one issue, even though that authority is 13 irrelevant to the matters before us on review. [MIO 2-4] Plaintiff contends that she 14 does not have access to her file s or legal resources, which would enable her to respond 15 more fully to the calendar notice. [MIO 1-2] Although Plaintiff asks for this Court’s 16 indulgence, we remind Plaintiff that it is her burden on appeal to set forth the relevant 17 facts and legal authority and that we hold her to the same standard as litigants with 181 That she now maintains that she made the statement but it was a lie seems to 18 be of no effect when viewing the record of the proceedings below. 19 6 counsel. See Bruce , 1999-NMCA-051, ¶ 4. 1 Moreover, we remain persuaded that Pl aintiff’s claims of error are without 2 merit. With respect to Plaintiff’s ch allenges to the contract claims, we noted 3 previously that it appeared that the distri ct court could properly conclude based on the 4 evidence presented by Defendants that Plaintiff was an at-will employee who could 5 be terminated at any time fo r any or no reason. [RP 120] We noted that the record 6 indicates that Defendants presented eviden ce that Plaintiff was fired after less than 7 three weeks on the job after she told Defe ndants that she had purchased marijuana. 1 8 [Id.] We further noted that the record i ndicates that Defendants presented evidence 9 that Plaintiff did not work overtime and that Defendants did not owe her any wages 10 or expenses. [Id.] In response, Plaintiff c ontends that the district court apparently 11 based its rulings on Defendant’s testimony and claims thatmuch of it was 12 controverted by Plaintiff’s evidence. [MIO 6-9] Although Plaintiff argues that there 13 was evidence to support her claims, we leave it to the trier of f act to evaluate the 14 credibility of witnesses and do not re-weigh evidence on appeal. See Tallman v. ABF 15 (Arkansas Best Freight), 108 N.M. 124, 127, 767 P.2d 363, 366 (Ct. App. 1988) 16 (stating that the trial court is in the best position to evaluate the credibility of 177 witnesses). 1 Plaintiff also continues to challenge th e district court’s finding that Plaintiff’s 2 notes and writing were not st olen by Defendants. [DS 3; MIO 2-4] In her response, 3 Plaintiff sets forth legal authority concerning copyright infringement that she claims 4 supports her position that an employee’s work product is not the property of the 5 employer if the employee is not receiving h ealth benefits. [MIO 2-4] We find that 6 Plaintiff’s citation to such authority is misplaced. The district court’s judgment 7 expressly dismissed Plaintiff’s copyright infringement claim because the federal 8 courts have exclusive jurisdiction. [RP 144-46] Plaintiff acknowledges in her response 9 that she recently filed a copyright infringeme nt claim in federal court. [MIO 2] We 10 therefore fail to see how Plaintiff’s cited authority is relevant to this case. Moreover, 11 to the extent the ownership of Plaintiff’s work product is relevant to this case, the 12 cited authority does not persuade us that the district court would have been wrong in 13 rejecting a claim that Defendants stole her work. As we noted previously, Plaintiff 14 was employed as a reporter fo r a newspaper. Thus, regardless of whether Plaintiff 15 received health insurance benefits, we cannot conclude that the district court erred if 16 it determined that Defendants were entitled to use any work that Plaintiff produced 17 during her employment. 18 Plaintiff continues to claim that the di strict court erred by “failing to order a 198 police investigation sua sponte of the invasion of [Plaintiff’s] bank accounts.” [DS 3; 1 MIO 9-11] Plaintiff claims that the districtcourt should have ordered an investigation 2 because unexplained charges had been made on her bank account, which she claims 3 may have been connected somehow to an extortion-bribery deal between Defendants 4 and a former judge. [MIO 11-12] Plaintiff’s arguments are entirely speculative and 5 unsupported by the evidence. In addition, Plaintiff cites to no authority compelling, 6 much less allowing the district court to order an investigation in these circumstances. 7 We therefore reject Plaintiff’s argument on this issue. 8 Finally, Plaintiff has not persuaded us thatthe district court erred in finding that 9 Defendants had not committed forgery by usi ng Plaintiff’s name on an e-mail to the 10 New Mexico State Police. [Id.] In our ca lendar notice, we noted that the record 11 indicates that Defendants presented evidence that they made a public records’ request 12 in Plaintiff’s name for a story on whic h she was working. [RP 25-26 (CV-2007-58)] 13 Thus, we proposed to hold that the request fell within the scope of her duties as a 14 reporter. In response, Plaintiff simply reiterates that a forgery occurred and states that 15 she would like to be able to cite case law because she claims it would support her 16 charge but she is not able to do so. [MIO 11-12] Under these circumstances, we 17 cannot conclude the district court erred in rejecting Plaintiff’s claim that Defendants 18 committed forgery. 199 We have attempted to address Plaintiff’s arguments to the best of our ability. 1 See Clayton v. Trotter , 110 N.M. 369, 373, 796 P.2d 262, 266 (Ct. App. 1990). 2 However, Plaintiff has not persuaded us that she has set forth recognized causes of 3 action or that there is any merit to her claims . We therefore affirm the district court’s 4 judgment dismissing all of Plaintiff’s claims with prejudice. 5 CONCLUSION 6 For these reasons, and those in the calendar notice, we affirm the district court. 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8

___________________________________ 9 RODERICK T. KENNEDY, Judge 10 WE CONCUR : 11

___________________________ 12 CELIA FOY CASTILLO, Judge 13

___________________________ 14 ROBERT E. ROBLES, Judge 15