This memorandum opinion was not selected for publi cation in the New Mexico Reports. Please see 1 Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. Please 2 also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated errors or other 3 deviations from the official paper version file d by the Court of Appeals and does not include the 4 filing date. 5 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 6 INARA CEDRINS, 7 Plaintiff-Appellant, 8

v. NO. 29,952 9 GEORGE ADELO, 10 Defendant-Appellee. 11 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF SANTA FE COUNTY 12 James A. Hall, District Judge 13 Inara Cedrins 14 Cerrillos, NM 15 Pro Se Appellant 16 George Adelo 17 Santa Fe, NM 18 Pro Se Appellee 19 MEMORANDUM OPINION 20 FRY, Chief Judge. 21 Plaintiff appeals, pro se, from the district court’s order dismissing her complaint 22 with prejudice. Unpersuaded that Plainti ff established error, we issued a notice of 23 proposed summary disposition, proposing summary affirmance. Plaintiff has 242 responded to our notice, which we have given due consideration. Plaintiff’s response 1 does not satisfy her burden of establis hing error. We, therefore, affirm. 2 On appeal, Plaintiff challenges the distri ct court’s dismissal of her complaint, 3 arguing that she presented evidence to support her claim for legal malpractice against 4 Defendant. [DS 12-13] Our notice observed that Plaintiff’s docketing statement did 5 not explain what evidence she presented to support her assertions, how that evidence 6 supported her allegations of legal malprac tice, what Defendant argued and presented 7 to support his assertions, and the grounds for the district court’s ruling. 8 In response to our notice, Plaintiff c ontends that her docketing statement was 9 sufficient under the Rules of Appellate Procedure, and that to the extent that the record 10 does not reveal what evidence she presente d, this Court should have requested that 11 evidence. [MIO 1] Plaintiff misunders tands her burden and obligations as the 12 appellant. We reiterate the warnings contained in our no tice. The appellate court 13 presumes that the district court is correct, and the appellant has the burden of clearly 14 establishing error. See Farmers, Inc. v. Dal Mach. & Fabricating, Inc. , 111 N.M. 6, 15 8, 800 P.2d 1063, 1065 (1990). As part of this burden and to comply with our Rules 16 of Appellate Procedure, it is incumbent on the appellant to provide this Court with all 17 the facts necessary for us to decide the i ssues he or she raises on appeal. Rule 12- 18 208(D)(3), (4) NMRA. This obligation to provi de us with all material facts, includes 193 the obligation to apprise this Court of the facts that support the district court’s ruling. 1 See Thornton v. Gamble , 101 N.M. 764, 769, 688 P.2d 1268, 1273 (Ct. App. 1984). 2 These obligations in our calendaring system are particularly important because the 3 docketing statement serves as a substitute for a complete record of the proceedings 4 below. See State v. Talley , 103 N.M. 33, 39, 702 P.2d 353, 359 (Ct. App. 1985) (order 5 & order to show cause). Where an appella nt fails “to provide us with a summary of 6 all the facts material to consideration of [his or her] issue, as required by [the rules], 7 we cannot grant relie f on [that] ground.” State v. Chamberlain , 109 N.M. 173, 176, 8 783 P.2d 483, 486 (Ct. App. 1989). Pro se litig ants must comply with the rules and 9 orders of the court and will not be treateddifferently than litigants with counsel. See 10 Bruce v. Lester , 1999-NMCA-051, ¶ 4, 127 N.M. 301, 980 P.2d 84. 11 Plaintiff’s response to our notice does not supply this Court with the 12 information we explained was missing from the docketing statement and unclear from 13 the record. Plaintiff recounts the same lis t of alleged neglectfu l conduct [MIO 1-3], 14 but offers no context for the allegations, does not explain why th at conduct constitutes 15 legal neglect of the standard of care, and how the conduct resu lted in and was the 16 proximate cause of loss to her. See Rancho Del Villacito Condos., Inc. v. Weisfeld , 17 121 N.M. 52, 55-56, 908 P.2d 745, 748-49 (1995) (describing the elements that must 18 be satisfied to establish a claim of legal malpractice). Further, Plaintiff does not 194 explain what Defendant argued and presented to defend against her claims. Plaintiff’s 1 response continues to make the conclusory assertion that she presented evidence that 2 Defendant failed to adequately represent her. [MIO 1, 3] 3 As we pointed out in our notice, the district court found that Plaintiff had 4 unreasonable expectations for the outcome of the trial and for Defe ndant and his staff, 5 that Plaintiff did not establish that Defe ndant’s representation fell below the standard 6 of care for a reasonably well-qualified atto rney, and that there was nothing Defendant 7 did or failed to do that caused Plaintiff to lose the case. [RP 129] Plaintiff does not 8 specifically discuss these concerns of the district court or the basis for these 9 statements. We do not presume the district court’s conclu sions were baseless. This 10 is precisely why Plaintiff had an obligation to set forth the arguments made below and 11 explain why her arguments should have prevailed. 12 We also observed that the record suggested that Plaintiff partly represented 13 herself, not relying solely on Defendant for her representation, in what appears to be 14 an agreement between the parties about thei r attorney-client relationship. [RP 55-61, 15 79-98] Plaintiff does not specifically respond to this concern, and the extent of the 16 parties’ obligations with regard to Plain tiff’s representation continues to be unclear. 17 Contrary to her burden on appeal, Plaintiff has not clearly demonstrated error. 18 We, therefore, affirm. 1956 IT IS SO ORDERED. 1

2 CYNTHIA A. FRY, Chief Judge 3 WE CONCUR: 4

5 CELIA FOY CASTILLO, Judge 6

7 LINDA M. VANZI, Judge 8