IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 1 DAVID DERRINGER, 2 Plaintiff-Appellant, 3

v. NO. 29,135 4 JAYME MOORE, and 5 TUMBLEWEED AUCTION CO., 6 Defendants-Appellees. 7 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY 8 Nan Nash, District Judge 9 David Derringer 10 Albuquerque, NM 11 Pro Se Appellant 12 Thomas Briones 13 Albuquerque, NM 14 for Appellees 15

MEMORANDUM OPINION 16 KENNEDY, Judge. 17 Plaintiff is appealing, pro se, from a di strict court judgment entered after an on18 the-record appeal from metropolitan court. We issued a calendar notice proposing to 19 affirm. Plaintiff has responded with a memorandum in opposition. We affirm. 20 In this case, Plaintiff is appealing, pro se, from a district court judgment entered 212 after an on-the-record appeal from metropolitan court. The district court dismissed 1 Plaintiff’s appeal based on the lack of an ad equate record. [RP 359] The district court 2 noted that neither party requested that the trial in the metropolitan court be recorded. 3 See NMSA 1978, § 34-8A-6(B) (“The metropolitan court is a court of record for civil 4 actions.”); Rule 1-073(A) NMRA (“Appealfrom metropolitan court on the record.”); 5 Rule 3-708(A) NMRA (“Every civil proceedi ng in the metropolitan court shall be tape 6 recorded if requested by a party.”). Plaintiff did not preserve a record in this case, 7 despite being informed by the metropolitan court that “[i]f you do not ask for a tape 8 recording, you will not have a record of the proceedings to take to the district court 9 for any appeal.” [RP 39] 10 Notwithstanding Plaintiff’s continued attempts to attack the merits of the 11 metropolitan court trial, we agree with the district court that the failure to preserve a 12 record of the metropolitan court trial effec tively makes this appeal unreviewable for 13 all claims arising out of that proceeding. It is the duty of the appellant to provide a 14 record adequate to reviewthe issues on appeal. Dillard v. Dillard , 104 N.M. 763, 15 765, 727 P.2d 71, 73 (C t. App. 1986). “Upon a doubtful or deficient record, every 16 presumption is indulged in favor of the co rrectness and regularity of the trial court's 17 decision, and the appellate court will indulge in reasonable presumptions in support 18 of the order entered.” Reeves v. Wimberly , 107 N.M. 231, 236, 755 P.2d 75, 80 (Ct. 19 App. 1988). 203 As we interpret Plaintiff’s issues on appeal, this means that we are unable to 1 address issues 3-9 [DS 6-13; MIO 1-4], wh ich go to the merits of trial proceedings. 2 With respect to Plaintiff’s continued contention that the metropolitan court cannot 3 serve as the highest court over this litigati on [MIO 4-5], our calendar notice observed 4 that two appeals have been taken by Plaintiff. The fact that Plaintiff has not prevailed 5 on his appeals does not mean that he was deprived of any process that was due, and 6 his argument that we should independently c onsider the merits of his case is answered 7 by the lack of any record to review. The f act that Plaintiff has acted pro se [MIO 3] 8 in this case does not mean that he should be afforded special protection, or that we 9 should set aside rules govern ing appellate review. See Bruce v. Lester , 1999-NMCA10 051, ¶ 4, 127 N.M. 301, 980 P.2d 84. With resp ect to the claim that a court may not 11 award attorney fees in a contract action [DS 5], this issue is without merit because 12 the metropolitan court specifically awarded no attorney fees. [RP 6] For the reasons 13 set forth above, we affirm. 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. 15

___________________________________ 16 RODERICK T. KENNEDY, Judge 17

WE CONCUR : 184 __________________________________ 1 MICHAEL D. BUSTAMANTE, Judge 2

__________________________________ 3 LINDA M. VANZI, Judge 4