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 Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.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 fr om 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 GABRIEL BECERRA, 2 Petitioner-Appellant, 3

v. NO. 32,456 4 ALLSTATE, 5 Respondent-Appellee. 6 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY 7 Nan G. Nash, District Judge 8 Gabriel Becerra 9 Albuquerque, NM 10 Pro Se Appellant 11 Simone, Roberts & Weiss, P.A. 12 Stephen M. Simone 13 David W. Frizzell 14 Albuquerque, NM 15 for Appellee 16 MEMORANDUM OPINION 17 VANZI, Judge. 182 {1} Appellant pro se, Gabriel Becerra, appeals the district court’s denial of his 1 motion to amend his counterclaim. We issued a notice of proposed summary 2 disposition proposing to dismiss for lack of a final order on January 16, 2013. 3 Appellant filed a timely memorandum inopposition. We have duly considered 4 Appellant’s arguments, and we remain unpersuaded. We therefore dismiss this 5 appeal. 6 {2} As an initial matter, we deny Appellant’s motion to amend the docketing 7 statement. Appellant’s motion to ame nd was filed on February 14, 2013. His 8 memorandum in opposition was filed on Februa ry 5, 2013. His motion to amend the 9 docketing statement is therefore untimely. See State v. Moore , 109 N.M. 119, 128-29, 10 782 P.2d 91, 100-01 (Ct. App. 1989) (stating that the time for filing a motion to 11 amend is with or before the first memorandum in opposition). 12 {3} This Court’s jurisdiction lies fro m final, appealable orders. See NMSA 1978, 13 § 39-3-2 (1966); Kelly Inn No. 102, Inc. v. Kapnison , 113 N.M. 231, 234-35, 824 P.2d 14 1033, 1036-37 (1992). Whether an order is fi nal, such that appeal is statutorily 15 authorized, is a jurisdictional question that this Court is required to raise on its own 16 motion. See Britt v. Phoenix Indem. Ins. Co. , 120 N.M. 813, 815, 907 P.2d 994, 996 17 (1995); Khalsa v. Levinson , 1998-NMCA-110, ¶ 12, 125 N.M. 680, 964 P.2d 844. 18 Generally, an order or judgment is not cons idered final unless all issues of law and 193 fact have been determined and the case di sposed of by the trial court to the fullest 1 extent possible. See Kelly Inn , 113 N.M. at 236, 824 P.2d at 1038 (1992). 2 {4} Appellant seeks to appeal the district court’s denial of his motion to alter or 3 amend the judgment filed on September 10, 2012. [Amended DS 2, RP 2379, 2861] 4 Although the motion is entitled a motion to alter or amend the judgment, it in essence 5 asks the district court to reconsider its August 30, 2012 ruling, in which the district 6 court denied his motion to amend his counterclaim. [RP 2297, 2379] See Century 7 Bank v. Hymans , 120 N.M. 684, 689, 905 P.2d 722, 727 (Ct. App. 1995) (stating that 8 the substance of the motion, not its title, controls). 9 {5} In our notice of proposed summary disposition, we proposed to hold that the 10 district court’s or der denying Appellant’s motion to amend his counterclaim and its 11 order denying reconsideration were not final appealable orders. See Clancy v. 12 Gooding , 98 N.M. 252, 254, 647 P.2d 885, 887 (Ct. App. 1982) (“Ordinarily, an order 13 denying a motion to amend a complaint is notfinal for purposes of appeal.”). In 14 Clancy , we held that an orde r denying a motion to amend a complaint to add an 15 insurance company as a defendant was not a final order where there was no indication 16 that the plaintiff’s cause of action against the insurance company would be effectively 17 lost or irreparably damaged as a result of the court’s denial of her motion to amend. 18 Id. at 255, 647 P.2d at 888. Additionally, ingeneral, an order or judgment is not 19 considered final unless all issues of law and fact have been determined and the case 204 disposed of by the trial court to the fullest extent possible. See Kelly Inn , 113 N.M. 1 at 236, 824 P.2d at 1038. Based on our review of the record, the district court’s denial 2 of Appellant’s motion did not dispose of th e case to the fullest extent possible because 3 other claims and counterclaims involving th e parties remained to be litigated. [RP 4 2300-2301] 5 {6} In his memorandum in opposition, Appellant states that the district court’s 6 denial of his motion to amend the complain t will result in his cause of action being 7 lost or irreparably harmed dueto issues of waiver and es toppel. [MIO 3] However, 8 Appellant does not elaborat e beyond this general assertion. We therefore do not 9 believe that Appellant has de monstrated how his cause of action would be irreparably 10 lost or damaged as a result of the districtcourt’s denial to amend the counterclaim. 11 See Hennessy v. Duryea , 1998-NMCA-036, ¶ 24, 124 N.M. 754, 955 P.2d 683 (“Our 12 courts have repeatedly held that, in summary calendar cases, the burden is on the party 13 opposing the proposed disposition to clearly point out errors in fact or law.”); see also 14 Muse v. Muse , 2009-NMCA-003, ¶ 72, 145 N.M. 451, 200 P.3d 104 (“We will not 15 search the record for facts, arguments, and rulings in order to support generalized 16 arguments.”). 17 {7} Appellant also argues that the districtcourt’s order denying his motion is too 18 important to be denied review and “too independent of the cause itself to require that 19 appellate consideration be deferred until the whole case is adjudicated.” [MIO 3] 205 Appellant also states that his appeal is “directly related to matters of first impression, 1 clarification or modification to existi ng common law, statutes, or Insurance Code 2 which are in dire need of being addresse d by a higher court.” [MIO 3-4] Again, 3 however, Appellant only makes generalized assertions and provides no information 4 or citation to relevant authority to support these claims. See Republican Party of N.M. 5 v. N.M. Taxation & Revenue Dep’t , 2010-NMCA-080, ¶ 38, 148 N.M. 877, 242 P.3d 6 444 (“[W]e do not review unclear or inade quately developed arguments or arguments 7 for which no authority has been cited.”); see also In re Adoption of Doe , 100 N.M. 8 764, 765, 676 P.2d 1329, 1330 (1984) (stating thatwhere a party cites no authority to 9 support an argument, we may assume no suchauthority exists). Finally, Appellant 10 asserts, without citation to authority, that an order denying leave to file an amended 11 or supplemented counterclaim is final for purposes of appeal. [MIO 3] This Court 12 will not consider propositions that are unsupported by citation to authority. ITT Educ. 13 Servs., Inc. v. Taxation & Revenue Dep’t , 1998-NMCA-078, ¶ 10, 125 N.M. 244, 959 14 P.2d 969. We therefore reject this argument. 15 {8} For these reasons, we dismiss this appeal . We note that, once the district court 16 enters a final order in this case, Appellant is free to appeal in accordance with our 17 rules of procedure. 18

{9} IT IS SO ORDERED. 196 __________________________________ 1 LINDA M. VANZI, Judge 2 WE CONCUR: 3

_________________________________ 4 JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge 5

_________________________________ 6 JONATHAN B. SUTIN, Judge 7