This memorandum opinion was not selected for pub lication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports. Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated errors or other deviations from the official paper version filed by the Court of Appeals and does not include the filing date. IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 1 MARIA XIMENA VAN GELDER, 2 Plaintiff-Appellant, 3

v. NO. A-1-CA-36689 4 MOLINA HEALTHCARE, 5 Defendant-Appellee. 6 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY 7 Valerie Huling, District Judge 8 Maria Ximena Van Gelder 9 Albuquerque, NM 10 Pro Se Appellant 11 MEMORANDUM OPINION 12 HANISEE, Judge. 13 {1} Plaintiff, a self-represented litigant, appeals from the district court’s order 14 denying her motion to reopen the case. We issued a notice of proposed summary 15 disposition in which we proposed to affirm. Plaintiff has filed a memorandum in 16 opposition. After due consideration, we are unpersuaded and therefore affirm. 172 {2} We previously set forth the relevant background information and principles of 1 law in the notice of proposed summary dis position. We will not reiterate them here. 2 Instead, we will focus on the content of the memorandum in opposition. 3 {3} In her memorandum in opposition, Plai ntiff continues to make various 4 arguments related to possible claims that she may have against Molina Healthcare. 5 [ See generally MIO; see also DS] However, she does not provide new facts or 6 authorities that persuade us that our propos ed summary disposition was in error. “Our 7 courts have repeatedly held that, in summary calendar cases, the burden is on the party 8 opposing the proposed disposition to clearly point out errors in fact or law.” Hennessy 9 v. Duryea , 1998-NMCA-036, ¶ 24, 124 N.M. 754, 955 P.2d 683; see also State v. 10 Mondragon , 1988-NMCA-027, ¶ 10, 107 N.M. 421, 759 P.2d 1003 (stating that “[a] 11 party responding to a summary calendar notice must come forward and specifically 12 point out errors of law and fact[,]” and the repetition of earlier arguments does not 13 fulfill this requirement), superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in State v. 14 Harris, 2013-NMCA-031, ¶ 3, 297 P.3d 374. 15 {4} While we note that Plaintiff asserts th at her motion to reopen the case in the 16 district court was improperly denied [MIO4], she has not demonstrated how the 17 district court erred in denyi ng her motion. Additionally, we note Plaintiff’s statements 18 that she has sought legal counsel to no avail and she has done her best with the court 193 filings. [MIO 3-4] Having chosen to represent herself in this Court, we hold her to the 1 same standard of compliance with our rule s as licensed attorneys in this state. See 2 Bruce v. Lester , 1999-NMCA-051, ¶ 4, 127 N.M. 301, 980 P.2d 84 (stating that “we 3 regard pleadings from pro se litigants with a tolerant eye, but a pro se litigant is not 4 entitled to special privileges because of [her] pro se status” and that a pro se party 5 “who has chosen to represent [herself], must comply with the rules and orders of the 6 court, and will not be entitled to greater rights than those litigants who employ 7 counsel”). 8 {5} We are not convinced that Plainti ff has demonstrated error on appeal. See 9 Farmers, Inc. v. Dal Mach. & Fabricating, Inc. , 1990-NMSC-100, ¶ 8, 111 N.M. 6, 10 800 P.2d 1063 (stating that appellate courts employ a presumption of correctness in 11 the rulings of the district court and the burden is on the appellant to clearly 12 demonstrate error). Therefore, for the reasons set forth in our notice of proposed 13 disposition and in this opinion, we affirm. 14 {6} IT IS SO ORDERED. 15

________________________________ 16 J. MILES HANISEE, Judge 17
WE CONCUR: 184 ____________________________ 1 DANIEL J. GALLEGOS, Judge 2

____________________________ 3 JENNIFER L. ATTREP, Judge 4