This memorandum opinion was not selected for publi cation in the New Mexico 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 Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.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 from the official paper version file d by the Court of Appeals and does not include the filing date. IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 1 BRUCE RUNYAN, 2 Plaintiff-Appellant, 3

v. NO. 31,175 4 MARCIAL VALDEZ, 5 Defendant-Appellee. 6

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF SANTA FE COUNTY 7 Barbara J. Vigil, District Judge 8 Bruce Runyan 9 Santa Fe, NM 10 for Appellant 11 Stiff, Keith & Garcia, LLC 12 Arturo Ricardo Garcia 13 Albuquerque, NM 14 for Appellee 15 MEMORANDUM OPINION 16 WECHSLER, Judge. 17 Plaintiff, appearing pro se, appeals the judgment entered in favor of Defendant. 182 We proposed to affirm the district court’s decision in a calendar notice. Plaintiff has 1 responded with a memorandum in opposition, and Defendant ha s responded with a 2 memorandum in support. We have carefully considered Plaintiff’s arguments, but we 3 are not persuaded that our proposed disposition was incorrect. Therefore, we affirm. 4 As explained in our calendar notice, Pl aintiff did not comply with Rule 12- 5 208(D) NMRA, which requires an appellant to include in the docketing statement a 6 concise, accurate statement of the case th at summarizes all of the material facts, 7 explains how the issues were preserved inthe lower court, and provides authorities in 8 support of and contrary to the appellant’s position. In his docketing statement, and 9 again in his memorandum in opposition, Plaintiff does not include specific details 10 about such matters as what evidence was presented, what arguments and objections 11 were made to the district court, or what ru lings were made by the district court. For 12 example, Plaintiff refers to a witness, butdoes not provide details about the testimony 13 of the witness except to say that the witness “said the plaintiff’s vehicle stopped on 14 the wall[.]” [MIO 6] In addition, the memorandum in opposition includes many 15 allegations regarding the bias and incomp etence of the district judge, but does not 16 indicate how the issues were preserved for appeal and provides no authority in support 17 of his claims of error. As explained inour calendar notice, when we are presented 18 with insufficient information to address th e claims made on app eal, we presume that 193 the district court was correct. Because Plaintiff has not presented sufficient 1 information for us to address his claim that the district court erred in refusing to find 2 Defendant at fault for the accident in this case, we affirm. 3 Moreover, based on the memorandum in support of the calendar notice and the 4 little information provided by Plaintiff, the ev idence presented to the district court was 5 sufficient to support the court’s decision. Defendant was traveli ng on Paseo de Peralta 6 approaching an intersection when Plainti ff was attempting to make a turn at the 7 intersection. Plaintiff was in the intersection when Defendant struck Plaintiff’s 8 vehicle. Plaintiff testified that the light was green when he got to the intersection and 9 was green when he was “cleari ng” the intersection. [MIO 3] The officer noted that 10 Plaintiff failed to yield the right of way. [MIS 1] Although Plaintiff indicates that 11 contrary evidence was presented, it was for the fact finder to resolve any conflicts in 12 the evidence. See Buckingham v. Ryan , 1998-NMCA-012, ¶ 10, 124 N.M. 498, 953 13 P.2d 33. We hold that the evidence referred to above was sufficient to support the 14 district court’s determination that Defe ndant was not at fault for the accident. 15 To the extent that Plaintiff argued thatDefendant was speeding, ran a red light, 16 was intoxicated, and could not judge speed and distance, Plaintiff presented only his 17 own allegations in support of these claims. [MIS 2] Although Plaintiff alleges that 18 Defendant ran a red light, the witness apparently testified that the light was yellow and 194 Plaintiff testified that the light was green when he entered and went through the 1 intersection. In addition, although Plainti ff claims that Defendant was intoxicated, 2 Defendant apparently testif ied that he had not been drinking at the time of the 3 accident. Furthermore, even if Plaintiff presented evidence in support of his 4 allegations, it was for the district court to weigh the credibility of witnesses and 5 resolve any conflicts in the evidence before it. See Chapman v. Varela , 2009-NMSC6 041, ¶ 5, 146 N.M. 680, 213 P.3d 1109. In this case, the district court weighed the 7 credibility of the witnesses and resolvedconflicts in the evidence in favor of 8 Defendant. 9 To the extent that Plaintiff attempte d to assign fault to Defendant because 10 Defendant left the scene of the accident, Plaintiff cites to no authority that would 11 support the proposition that leaving the scene of an accident provides proof that the 12 absent driver was at fault for the accident. Where a party cites no authority to support 13 an argument, we may assume no such authority exists. In re Adoption of Doe , 100 14 N.M. 764, 765, 676 P.2d 1329, 1330 (1984). 15 Finally, we note that a document was filed with this Court that appears to be an 16 unofficial transcript of the proceedings inthe district court. There is nothing to 17 indicate that the district court or this C ourt was presented with a motion to supplement 18 the record or that the parties stipulated to supplementation of the record with the 195 document. SeeRule 12-209(C) NMRA. We point out that, “[m]atters outside the 1 record present no issue for review.” State v. Reynolds , 111 N.M. 263, 267, 804 P.2d 2 1082, 1086 (Ct. App. 1990). Therefore, we have not relied on the unofficial transcript 3 in addressing the issues on appeal. 4 For the reasons discussed in this opini on and in our calendar notice, we affirm 5 the district court’s decision. 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7

______________________________ 8 JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge 9

WE CONCUR: 10

__________________________________ 11 MICHAEL D. BUSTAMANTE, Judge 12

__________________________________ 13 MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Judge 14