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 Please 1 see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. 2 Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated 3 errors or other deviations from the official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

v. NO. 30,839 9 NEW MEXICO CORRECTIONS 10 DEPARTMENT, 11 Defendant-Appellee. 12 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF DOÑA ANA COUNTY 13 James T. Martin, District Judge 14 Eugene Downer 15 Cloudcroft, NM 16 Pro Se Appellant 17 Sandenaw Law Firm, P.C. 18 CaraLyn Banks 19 Las Cruces, NM 20 for Appellee 21

MEMORANDUM OPINION 22 VIGIL, Judge. 232 Plaintiff appeals an order dismissing his complaint for defamation and 1 intentional infliction of emotional distre ss. In this Court’s notice of proposed 2 summary disposition, we proposed to affirm. Plaintiff has filed a memorandum in 3 opposition. We have considered Plaintiff’sarguments, and as we are not persuaded 4 by them, we affirm. 5 Plaintiff’s docketing statement raised elev en claims of error, all of which were 6 addressed in this Court’s notice of proposed summary disposition. In Plaintiff’s 7 memorandum in opposition, he makes a single argument: that Defendant was not 8 immune under the Tort Claims Act becau se the conduct allege d fell within the 9 exception provided by NMSA 1978, Section 41-4-10 (1978). [MIO unnumbered page 10 1] That section states that the immunitygranted under the Tort Claims Act “does not 11 apply to liability for damage s resulting from bodily injury, wrongful death or property 12 damage caused by the negligence of pub lic employees licensed by the state or 13 permitted by law to provide health care servi ces while acting within the scope of their 14 duties of providing health care services.” 15 In our notice of proposed summary disposition, we proposed to decline to 16 address this argument because it appeared from the record that Plaintiff had not 17 preserved it. [CN 10] See Woolwine v. Furr’s, Inc. , 106 N.M. 492, 496, 745 P.2d 18 717, 721 (Ct. App. 1987) (“To preserve an issue for review on appeal, it must appear 193 that appellant fairly invoked a ruling of the trial court on the same grounds argued in 1 the appellate court.”). Plaintiff’s memorandum in opposition does not represent that 2 he did in fact preserve this argument. Accordingly, we decline to address the issue, 3 as Plaintiff has not demonstrated that it wa s preserved in the district court, and the 4 record appears to agree. See Hennessy v. Duryea , 1998-NMCA-036, ¶ 24, 124 N.M. 5 754, 955 P.2d 683 (“Our courts have repeatedly held that, in summary calendar cases, 6 the burden is on the party opposing the proposed disposition to clearly point out errors 7 in fact or law.”). 8 Therefore, for the reasons stated in this opinion and in our notice of proposed 9 summary disposition, we affirm. 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11

___________________________________ 12 MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Judge 13 WE CONCUR: 14

_____________________________ 15 CYNTHIA A. FRY, Judge 16

_____________________________ 174 TIMOTHY L. GARCIA, Judge 1