This memorandum opinion was not selected for pub lication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports. Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restricti ons on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.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 TINSLEY TRAILER PARK, 2 Plaintiff-Appellee, 3 v. No. 33,864 4 DAVID DANIEL CEPEDA, 5 Defendant-Appellant. 6 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF OTERO COUNTY 7 Angie K. Schneider, District Judge 8 John R. Hakanson 9 Alamogordo, NM 10 for Appellee 11 David Daniel Cepeda 12 Alamogordo, NM 13 Pro Se Appellant 14 MEMORANDUM OPINION 15 SUTIN, Judge. 16 {1} Appellant David Daniel Cepeda appeals the district court’s judgment against 17 him for unpaid rents and for eviction. [RP 104-05] We issued a notice of proposed 182 summary disposition proposing to affirm on September 9, 2014. Appellant filed a 1 memorandum in opposition, which we have dul y considered. We remain unpersuaded 2 that our initial proposed disposition was incorrect, and we therefore affirm. 3 DISCUSSION 4
{2} In his memorandum in opposition, Appellant continues to assert that the district 5 court gave him improper instructions regarding a DVD that he wanted to introduce 6 into evidence and that, as a result, he wa s forced to proceed without the evidence. 7 [MIO 2-4] Appellant asserts that at th e pretrial hearing on November 22, 2013, the 8 district court told him that a DVD, which Appellant said was in evidence in the 9 magistrate court trial, would be sent to the district court by the magistrate court. [MIO 10 2-3] No DVD was sent from the magistrate c ourt, and on the day of trial, the district 11 court told Appellant that it was his burden to produce the DVD. [DS 1] Appellant 12 argues that he was denied due process when he was forced to continue to trial without 13 the DVD and that the DVD evidence was crucial to support his claim for detrimental 14 reliance and his claim that Plaintiff told him that he would not have to pay until he 15 made certain improvements to the property. [MIO 2-4] 16
{3} In our notice of proposed summary disposition, we proposed to affirm on the 17 basis that the record does not support Appellant’s claim that the district court gave 18 him improper information about the pro cess by which it would obtain any evidence 193 introduced in the magistrate court. The tape logs indicate that at the hearing on 1 November 22, 2013, Appellant told the district court that he had presented a DVD in 2 magistrate court and asked whether he would be able to play it at the trial in district 3 court. [RP 22] The distri ct court responded that if a DVD had been introduced into 4 evidence below, then the magistrate court should provide it to the district court. [RP 5 22] See Rule 2-705(E)(4) NMRA (stating that w ithin fifteen days after the appellant 6 files a copy of the notice of appeal with the magistrate court, the magistrate court shall 7 file the record on appeal, including any exhib its, with the clerk of the district court). 8 The district court’s statement that the magistrate court would send the DVD to the 9 district court if it was an exhibit belo w was a correct statement of the law. See Rule 10 2-705(E)(4). We therefore reject Appellant’s argument that the district court gave him 11 improper information that resulted in him having to proceed without evidence to 12 support his claims. 13
{4} We also noted in our notice of proposed summary disposition that there is no 14 indication in the record that a DVD was introduced into evidence in the magistrate 15 court trial. [RP 38-71] Th e record on appeal provided by the magistrate court to the 16 district court shows that there were no exhibits before the magistrate court. [RP 38] 17 We understand Appellant to claim that th e magistrate court either misplaced or 18 misfiled the DVD exhibit. [MIO 4] Howe ver, the record also indicates that the 194 parties were given notice of the filing of the magistrate court file on February 21, 1 2014, and the notice indicated that no exhibits were part of the record on appeal. [RP 2 38] See Rule 2-705(E) (stating that the magistratecourt clerk shall give prompt notice 3 to the parties of the filing of the record on appeal with the district court). If Appellant 4 believed that a DVD had mistakenly been excluded from the magistrate court file, the 5 district court rules provide a mechanism for him to address that s ituation, and he had 6 notice of the alleged omission well before the April 29 trial date. See Rule 1-073(G) 7 NMRA (stating that “[i]f anything material to either party is omitted from the record 8 on appeal by error or accident, the parties by stipulation, or the metropolitan court on 9 motion, or the district court, on proper s uggestion or on its own initiative, may direct 10 that the omission be corrected and a suppl emental record transmitted to the district 11 court”). As the record indi cates that no exhibits were filed in magistrate court and as 12 Appellant did not avail himself of his opportunity to seek correction or modification 13 of the record pursuant to Rule 1-073(G) below, we presume the regularity of the 14 proceedings, and we reject this assertion of error. See Reeves v. Wimberly , 15 1988-NMCA-038, ¶ 21, 107 N.M. 231, 755 P.2d 75 (“Upon a doubtful or deficient 16 record, every presumption is indulged in favor of the correctness and regularity of the 17 trial court’s decision, and the appellate c ourt will indulge in reasonable presumptions 18 in support of the order entered.”). 195 {5} Appellant next maintains his argument that the district court erred in not 1 granting his motion for a continuance after Appellant informed it that he had not 2 received notice of the trial date until the day before the hearing. [MIO 4-7] We 3 review the district court’s denial of the motion for an abuse of discretion. See 4 Paragon Found., Inc. v. State Livestock Bd. , 2006-NMCA-004, ¶ 31, 138 N.M. 761, 5 126 P.3d 577 (stating that an appellate court reviews the denial of a motion for 6 continuance for abuse of discretion). “An abuse of discretion occurs when a ruling 7 is clearly contrary to the logical conclu sions demanded by the facts and circumstances 8 of the case.” Sims v. Sims , 1996-NMSC-078, ¶ 65, 122 N.M. 618, 930 P.2d 153. 9
{6} As we noted in our notice of proposed summary disposition, Appellant had 10 been granted several continuances over a period of several months prior to the district 11 court denying his motion for continuance on th e day of trial. [RP 15, 19, 23-24, 29- 12 31, 34] We also reject Appellant’s argument that he was entitled to another 13 continuance because he did not timely recei ve notice of the trial date. The record 14 indicates that the district court verified w ith Appellant that the address the notice was 15 sent to was his correct address. [RP 87] Under these circumstances, we believe the 16 district court was within its discretion in refusing to grant a further continuance. See 17 Griffin v. Thomas , 2004-NMCA-088, ¶ 56, 136 N.M. 129, 95 P.3d 1044 (holding that 18 the district court did not abuse its disc retion in denying a motion for continuance 196 where there was no indication of any benefit that the plaintiff could have received 1 from a continuance, any prejudice to the plai ntiff as a result of the denial, or any 2 legitimate motive for further delaying the proceedings); El Paso Elec. v. Real Estate 3 Mart, Inc. , 1982-NMCA-101, ¶¶ 45-49, 98 N.M. 490, 650 P.2d 12 (determining that 4 the district court did not abuse its di scretion in denying last-minute motion for 5 continuance, which was based on the movants’ assertion of lack of discovery, because 6 “[d]iscovery should not be delayed until trial is near and confusion arises”). 7 {7} Appellant next argues that the district c ourt abused its discretion in not allowing 8 him to introduce photographic evidence to support his claims of unjust enrichment. 9 [MIO 7-8] We review the admission or ex clusion of evidence for abuse of discretion. 10 See Hourigan v. Cassidy , 2001-NMCA-085, ¶ 21, 131 N.M. 141, 33 P.3d 891; see 11 also Bourgeous v. Horizon Healthcare Corp ., 1994-NMSC-038, ¶ 23, 117 N.M. 434, 12 872 P.2d 852 (stating that the admission or ex clusion of evidence is a matter within 13 the sound discretion of the trial court). “An abuse of discretion occurs when a ruling 14 is clearly contrary to the logical conclu sions demanded by the facts and circumstances 15 of the case.” Sims , 1996-NMSC-078, ¶ 65. 16
{8} In our notice of proposed summary disposition, we noted that, although 17 Appellant did not inform us of the basis for the district court’s ruling excluding the 18 photographs, it appeared that the district court determined that the pictures only 197 showed alleged improvements to the property and that such pictures would not be 1 relevant in the absence of photographs s howing the condition of the property before 2 the alleged improvements. [RP 101] In his memorandum in opposition, Appellant 3 does not contest the assertion that his proffered photographs show ed only his alleged 4 improvements to the property and did not show the property before the alleged 5 improvements. Rather, Appellant argues th at the district court erred in failing to 6 personally look at the photographs before determining that they were not relevant on 7 this basis. [MIO 7-8] We disagree, however, and hold that the district court’s 8 exclusion of the photographs on this basi s was not an abuse of discretion. See Rule 9 11-401 NMRA (stating that evidence is relevant if “it has any tendency to make a fact 10 more or less probable than it would be w ithout the evidence” and “the fact is of 11 consequence in determining the action”); Rule 11-402 NMRA (stating that evidence 12 that is not relevant is not admissible); see also Coates v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc ., 13 1999-NMSC-013, ¶ 36, 127 N.M. 47, 976 P.2d 999 (noting that the exclusion of 14 evidence is within the discretion of the district court and an abus e of discretion occurs 15 when the ruling is clearly ag ainst the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances 16 of the case). 17
{9} Appellant also continues to argue that the district court erred in denying his 18 motion to file a counterclaim because allo wing the counterclaim would not have been 198 burdensome or confusing. [M IO 8] We review this i ssue for abuse of discretion. See 1 Gonzales v. Lopez , 2002-NMCA-086, ¶ 11, 132 N.M. 558, 52 P.3d 418 (noting that 2 allowing a permissive counterclaim is discretionary with the court); see also Rule 1- 3 013(B) NMRA (governing permissive countercl aims). “An abuse of discretion occurs 4 when a ruling is clearly contrary to the logical conclusions demanded by the facts and 5 circumstances of the case.” Sims , 1996-NMSC-078, ¶ 65. 6 {10} Based on our review of the record an d the tape logs, the district court 7 considered the fact that Appellant had not raised the issue sooner, that the trial had 8 already been continued several times, and that the issues that Appellant sought to 9 include in the counterclaim were not related to the eviction action. [RP 31] Under 10 these circumstances, we see no abuse of disc retion in the district court’s refusal to 11 allow Appellant to file a counterclaim. See Gonzales , 2002-NMCA-086, ¶ 11 12 (holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying inclusion of a 13 permissive counterclaim where “[a]llowi ng addition of the counterclaim would 14 complicate trial of the basic estate cl aim, require additional discovery[,] and 15 potentially delay an imminent trial”). 16
{11} Appellant next argues that the district court abused its di scretion in finding it 17 irrelevant who actually owned the property in question. [M IO 8-9] In our notice of 18 proposed summary disposition, we noted thatAppellant had not informed this Court 199 how this issue arose, the relevant facts, orthe basis for the district court’s ruling. See 1 Rule 12-208(D)(4) NMRA (stating that the docketing statement “shall contain . . . a 2 statement of how [the issues presented in the appeal] arose and how they were 3 preserved in the trial court”); see also Thornton v. Gamble ,1984-NMCA-093, ¶ 18, 4 101 N.M. 764, 688 P.2d 1268 (stating that the docketing statement must set out all 5 relevant facts, including those facts supporting the district court’s decision). In his 6 memorandum in opposition, Appellant does not provide clarification on these points. 7 Rather, Appellant states that he has pers onally never seen the deeds to the subject 8 property and argues that it is reasonable and in the interests of justice for him to know 9 who owned the property as only the actual owner of the property can legally sell it. 10 [MIO 8] To the extent that Appellant seeks to raise an issue as to Plaintiff’s standing 11 to initiate the action against him, he has not provided us with the necessary 12 information regarding preservation of this issue and any relevant facts developed 13 below. We are therefore not in a position to meaningfully review this issue. We also 14 note that Appellant has cited no authority to support his argument. See In re Adoption 15 of Doe , 1984-NMSC-024, ¶ 2, 100 N.M. 764, 676 P.2d 1329 (stating that where a 16 party cites no authority to support an argument, we may assume no such authority 17 exists). Accordingly, we reject this assertion of error and affirm. See City of 18 Albuquerque v. Westland Dev. Co. , 1995-NMCA-136, ¶ 34, 121 N.M. 144, 909 P.2d 1910 25 (“The appellant has the burden to point out clearly and specifically the error it 1 asserts on appeal.”). 2
{12} We also understand Appellant to concede that his claim that he was subjected 3 to harassment, including an a ssault and battery is not on th e record. We therefore do 4 not address this issue, as on appeal, wedo not review matters not of record. See 5 Rangel v. Save Mart, Inc ., 2006-NMCA-120, ¶ 36, 140 N.M. 395, 142 P.3d 983; see 6 also Lujan ex rel. Lujan v. Casados-Lujan , 2004-NMCA-036, ¶ 20, 135 N.M. 285, 87 7 P.3d 1067 (“Bedrock principles of appellate law dictate that matters not of record 8 present no issue for review, that there is a presumption of regularity in the proceedings 9 below, and that error must be clearly demonstrated.”). 10
{13} Finally, we note that Appellant has attempted to raise several new issues in his 11 memorandum in opposition. Specifically, Appellant now argues that the district court 12 was biased against him and that Plainti ff should have been barred from seeking a 13 higher damages award at the trial de novo in district court. [MIO 3-5] Appellant did 14 not raise these issues in his docketing statement, and therefore they must be brought 15 pursuant to a motion to amend the docketing statement. SeeRule 12-208(F) (stating 16 that ”[t]he Court of Appeals may, upon good cause shown, allow the amendment of 17 the docketing statement”). To the extent that Appellant’s memorandum in opposition 18 can be construed as a motion to amend the docketing statement to add these issues, we 1911 deny the motion as Appellant ha s not demonstrated that th ese issues were preserved 1 below or that they are otherwise viable. See State v. Moore , 1989-NMCA-073, ¶ 42, 2 109 N.M. 119, 782 P.2d 91 (stating that this Court will deny motions to amend that 3 raise issues that are not viab le, even if they allege fundamental or jurisdictional error), 4 superseded by rule on other grounds as stated in State v. Salgado , 1991-NMCA-044, 5 112 N.M. 537, 817 P.2d 730. 6 {14} For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the district court. 7
{15} IT IS SO ORDERED. 8

__________________________________ 9 JONATHAN B. SUTIN, Judge 10

WE CONCUR: 11

_______________________________ 12 CYNTHIA A. FRY, Judge 13

_______________________________ 14 M. MONICA ZAMORA, Judge 15