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 Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.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 NANCY E. BARELA and 2 JOSE ANGEL DIAZ, 3 Petitioners-Appellees, 4 v. No. 34,509 5
CARLOS L. DIAZ, 6 Respondent-Appellant.. 7 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF VALENCIA 8 COUNTY 9 Allen R. Smith, District Judge 10 Elias Barela 11 Los Lunas, NM 12 for Appellees 13 Carlos L. Diaz 14 Albuquerque, NM 15 Pro Se Appellant 16 MEMORANDUM OPINION 17 HANISEE Judge. 182 {1} Self-represented Respondent Carlos L. Diaz appeals from various orders 1 entered by the district court. [DS 1; see also RP Vol. 1/72, 82, 216-20, 255-56, 437- 2 40, 443-44, 456, 472-73] In this Court’s no tice of proposed disposition, we proposed 3 to dismiss the appeal for lack of a fi nal order. [CN 1, 8-9] Respondent filed a 4 memorandum in response to our proposed disposition (MIO), wh ich we have duly 5 considered. Remaining unpersuaded, we dismi ss the appeal for lack of a final order. 6
{2} In his memorandum in response, Respondent has not raised any arguments that 7 refute our proposed conclusions that th e underlying proceedings are non-final, that 8 Respondent’s appeal is premature, and that the appeal should be dismissed for lack of 9 a final order. [ SeeCN 7-8] See State v. Griego , 2004-NMCA-107, ¶ 22, 136 N.M. 10 272, 96 P.3d 1192 (dismissing for lack of jurisdiction when no final judgment had 11 been entered); State v. Garcia , 1983-NMCA-017, ¶¶ 29-30, 99 N.M. 466, 659 P.2d 12 918 (same); see also State v. Romero , 2014-NMCA-063, ¶ 5, 327 P.3d 525 (“[T]he 13 finality of a judgment may be suspended by the timely filing of a motion for 14 reconsideration.”); Rule 12-201(D)(4) NMRA (stating that the district court retains 15 jurisdiction to dispose of one of the types of motions for reconsideration listed in Rule 16 12-201(D)(1), (2), upon the filing of such a motion). Rather, Respondent contends that 17 the district court has “taken the position to ignore any all [sic] Motions filed,” and 18 therefore asks this Court to hold the app eal in abeyance pending the district court’s 193 entry of a final order. [MIO 3] However, as we explained in our notice of proposed 1 disposition, this Court does not have jurisdiction when no final judgment has been 2 entered. See Griego , 2004-NMCA-107, ¶ 22 (dismissing for lack of jurisdiction when 3 no final judgment had been entered); Garcia , 1983-NMCA-017, ¶¶ 29-30 (same). As 4 such, we decline to take any actions in this Court, other than dismissing for lack of 5 jurisdiction, while the district court still retains jurisdiction. See Rule 12-201(D)(4) 6 (stating that the district court retains juri sdiction to dispose of one of the types of 7 motions for reconsideration listed in Rule12-201(D)(1), (2), upon the filing of such 8 a motion). 9
{3} Moreover, we note that, since this Court entered its notice of proposed 10 disposition, Respondent has filed yet another motion for reconsideration. As the 11 district court has not ruled on Respondent’s motions to vacate or reconsider various 12 orders, the underlying proceedings are deemed non-final, and Respondent’s appeal is 13 premature. See Romero , 2014-NMCA-063, ¶ 5; Rule 12-201(D)(4); see also Dickens 14 v. Laurel Healthcare, LLC , 2009-NMCA-122, ¶ 6, 147 N.M. 303, 222 P.3d 675 15 (explaining that, when a “motion that challenges the district court’s determination of 16 the rights of the parties[] is pending in the di strict court, the judgment or order entered 17 by the district court remains non-final . . . and [the] appeal is premature” (citation 18 omitted)). 194 {4} Accordingly, for the reasons stated in our notice of proposed disposition and 1 herein, Respondent’s appeal is dismissed for lack of a final order. 2
{5} IT IS SO ORDERED. 3 4

5 J. MILES HANISEE, Judge 6

WE CONCUR: 7

8 MICHAEL D. BUSTAMANTE, Judge 9

10 RODERICK T. KENNEDY, Judge 11