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 Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.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 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 RACHEAL RITA MEDINA, 2 Plaintiff-Appellee, 3

v. NO. A-1-CA-36636 4 SOFIA HERNANDEZ d/b/a 5 J. CONSTRUCTION, 6 Defendant-Appellant. 7 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF CURRY COUNTY 8 David P. Reeb, District Judge 9 Racheal Rita Medina 10 Clovis, NM 11 Pro Se Appellee 12 Sofia Hernandez 13 Clovis, NM 14 Pro Se Appellant 15 MEMORANDUM OPINION 16 VANZI, Chief Judge. 17 {1} Appellant, Sofia Hernandez, appeals fro m an order of the district court 18 dismissing her appeal from a magistrate court judgment on the basis that it was not 192 timely filed. We issued a notice of proposed summary disposition proposing to affirm 1 the district court, and a memorandum in opposition was filed. Weremain unpersuaded 2 that our initial proposed disposition was incorrect, and we therefore affirm. 3 {2} Plaintiff sued Appellant in magistrate court, and the magistrate court entered 4 judgment against her in the amount of $6, 491.25. [RP 4] The judgment was entered 5 on June 14, 2017. [RP 4] Pursuant to the ru les of civil procedure for the magistrate 6 courts, Appellant had fifteen days in whic h to appeal the judgment by filing a notice 7 of appeal in the appropriate district court. See Rule 2-705(A) NMRA (stating that a 8 party who is aggrieved by a judgment in a civ il action may appeal to the district court 9 of the county within which the magistrate court is located within fifteen (15) days 10 after the judgment appealed from is filed inthe magistrate court); Rule 2-705(B)(1) 11 (stating that an appeal from the magistrate court is taken by filing a notice of appeal 12 with the district court). Appellant did not fileher notice of appeal in the district court 13 until July 12, 2017, and the notice was therefore thirteen days late. [RP 1] Plaintiff 14 filed a motion to dismiss the appeal based on the late notice, and the district court 15 granted the motion. [RP 5-6] 16 {3} We affirm. Timely filing of the notice of appeal is a mandatory precondition to 17 the exercise of appellate jurisdiction. See Govich v. N. Am. Sys., Inc ., 1991-NMSC18 061, ¶ 12, 112 N.M. 226, 814 P.2d 94. Since Appellant did not timely file the notice 19 of appeal as required by the rules of proce dure, we hold that the district court did not 203 err in dismissing the appeal. See Trujillo v. Serrano , 1994-NMSC-024, ¶ 19, 117 N.M. 1 273, 871 P.2d 369 (“Only the most unusual ci rcumstances beyond the control of the 2 parties—such as error on the part of the court—will warrant overlooking procedural 3 defects.”); see also Woodhull v. Meinel , 2009-NMCA-015, ¶ 30, 145 N.M. 533, 202 4 P.3d 126 (stating that pro se litigants must co mply with the rules and orders of the 5 court and will not be treated differently than litigants with counsel). 6 {4} To the extent Appellant seeks to assert th at she was told that she had thirty days 7 in which to file the notice of appeal as a justification for her failure to timely file the 8 notice of appeal, we note that on the recordbefore us, there is nothing to support this 9 claim. [MIO 1] See Rangel v. Save Mart, Inc ., 2006-NMCA-120, ¶ 36, 140 N.M. 395, 10 142 P.3d 983 (stating that this Court will not consider matters not of record on 11 appeal). We therefore presume the regularity of the proceedings in the lower courts. 12 See Lujan ex rel. Lujan v. Casados-Lujan , 2004-NMCA-036, ¶ 20, 135 N.M. 285, 87 13 P.3d 1067 (“Bedrock principles of appellate law dictate that matters not of record 14 present no issue for review, th at there is a presumption of regularity in the proceedings 15 below, and that error must be clearly demonstrated.”). 16 {5} For these reasons, we affirm the district court’s order dismissing the appeal. 17

{6} IT IS SO ORDERED. 184 __________________________________ 1 LINDA M. VANZI, Chief Judge 2 WE CONCUR: 3

_________________________________ 4 STEPHEN G. FRENCH, Judge 5

_________________________________ 6 EMIL J. KIEHNE, Judge 7