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 Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.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

v. NO. 32, 393 4 MARIO SALAZAR and 5 NARCISO GARCIA, JR. 6 Defendant-Appellant. 7 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY 8 Nan G. Nash, District Judge 9 Gabriel Becerra 10 Albuquerque, NM 11 Pro Se Appellant 12 Rodey, Dickason, Sloan, Akin & Robb, P.A. 13 Lisa C. Ortega 14 Seth L. Sparks 15 Albuquerque, NM 16 for Appellee 17 MEMORANDUM OPINION 18 VANZI, Judge. 192 {1} References to the Record Proper [RP] are to the record filed in this Court in 1 Becerra v. Allstate , No. 32,456. 2 {2} Appellant pro se, Gabriel Becerra, appeals the district court’s denial of his 3 motion to amend or supplement the complaint. We issued a notice of proposed 4 summary disposition proposing to dismiss fo r lack of a final order on January 16, 5 2013. Appellant has res ponded with a timely memorandum in opposition, which we 6 have duly considered. We re main unpersuaded, and we therefore dismiss this appeal. 7 {3} This Court’s jurisdiction lies fro m final, appealable orders. See NMSA 1978, 8 § 39-3-2 (1966); Kelly Inn No. 102 v. Kapnison , 113 N.M. 231, 234 n.7, 824 P.2d 9 1033, 1036 n.7 (1992). Whether an order is fi nal, such that appeal is statutorily 10 authorized, is a jurisdictional question that this Court is required to raise on its own 11 motion. See Britt v. Phoenix Indem. Ins. Co. , 120 N.M. 813, 815, 907 P.2d 994, 996 12 (1995); Khalsa v. Levinson , 1998-NMCA-110, ¶ 12, 125 N.M. 680, 964 P.2d 844. 13 {4} Appellant seeks to appeal from two orders of the district court. [DS 2] The first 14 order, filed on July 18, 2012, denies Appe llant’s motion to amend his complaint to 15 add Narciso Garcia as a defendant to his claims of malicious abuse of process and 16 fraudulent conveyance. [RP 2114] On July 30, 2012, Appellant filed a motion to “alter 17 or amend judgment.” [RP 2152] Although it is titled a motion to alter or amend the 18 judgment, the motion essentially asks the district court to reconsider its July 18 order 19 denying his motion to amend. See Century Bank v. Hymans , 120 N.M. 684, 689, 905 203 P.2d 722, 727 (Ct. App. 1995) (s tating that the substance of the motion, not its title, 1 controls). On August 10, 2012, the distri ct court filed the second order denying the 2 motion for reconsideration. [RP 2216] 3 {5} In our notice of proposed summary disposition, we proposed to hold that the 4 district court’s order denying Appellant’s motion to amend his complaint and its order 5 denying reconsideration were not final appealable orders. See Clancy v. Gooding , 98 6 N.M. 252, 254, 647 P.2d 885, 887 (Ct. App. 1982) (“Ordinarily, an order denying a 7 motion to amend a complaint is not fi nal for purposes of appeal.”). In Clancy , we held 8 that an order denying a motion to amend a complaint to add an insurance company as 9 a defendant was not a final order where th ere was no indication that the plaintiff’s 10 cause of action against the insurance company would be effectively lost or irreparably 11 damaged as a result of the court’s denial of her motion to amend. See id. at 254-55, 12 647 P.2d at 887-88. We proposed to hold thatAppellant had not made such a showing 13 based on our review of the record and the docketing statement. 14 {6} In his memorandum in opposition, Appellant states that the district court’s 15 denial of his motion to amend the complaint will result in his cause of action being 16 lost or irreparably harmed due to statute of limitations issues and collateral estoppel. 17 [MIO 2] However, Appellant does not el aborate beyond this general assertion. We 18 therefore do not believe thatAppellant has demonstratedhow his cause of action 19 would be irreparably lost or damaged as a result of the district court’s denial to amend. 204 See Hennessy v. Duryea , 1998-NMCA-036, ¶ 24, 124 N.M. 754, 955 P.2d 683 (“Our 1 courts have repeatedly held that, in summary calendar cases, the burden is on the party 2 opposing the proposed disposition to clearly point out errors in fact or law.”); see also 3 Muse v. Muse , 2009-NMCA-003, ¶ 72, 145 N.M. 451, 200 P.3d 104 (“We will not 4 search the record for facts, arguments, and rulings in order to support generalized 5 arguments.”). 6 {7} Appellant also argues that the district court’s order denying his motion is too 7 important to be denied revi ew and “too independent of th e cause itself to require that 8 appellate consideration be deferred until the whole case is adjudicated.” [MIO 2] 9 Appellant also states that his appeal “is directly related to matters of first impression, 10 clarification, or modification to existing common law or statutes which are in dire 11 need of being addressed by a higher court.” [MIO 2-3] Again, however, Appellant 12 only makes generalized assertions and provides no information or citation to relevant 13 authority to support these claims. See Republican Party of N.M. v. N.M. Taxation & 14 Revenue Dep’t , 2010-NMCA-080, ¶ 38, 148 N.M. 877, 242 P.3d 444 (“[W]e do not 15 review unclear or inadequately devel oped arguments or arguments for which no 16 authority has been cited.”); see also In re Adoption of Doe , 100 N.M. 764, 765, 676 17 P.2d 1329, 1330 (1984) (stating that where a party cites no authority to support an 18 argument, we may assume no such authorityexists). Finally, Appellant asserts, 19 without citation to authority, that an order denying leave to file an amended or 205 supplemented complaint is final for purposes of appeal. [MIO 2] This Court will not 1 consider propositions that are unsupported by citation to authority. ITT Educ. Servs., 2 Inc. v. Taxation & Revenue Dep’t , 1998-NMCA-078, ¶ 10, 125 N.M. 244, 959 P.2d 3 969. We therefore reject this argument. 4 {8} Accordingly, we hold that Appellant has not demonstrated that the district 5 court’s order denying his motion to amend th e complaint is a final order which can be 6 appealed at this stage of the proceedings. For these reas ons, we dismiss this appeal. 7 We note that, once the district court enters a final order in this case, Appellant is free 8 to appeal in accordance withour rules of procedure. 9 {9} IT IS SO ORDERED. 10

__________________________________ 11 LINDA M. VANZI, Judge 12 WE CONCUR: 13

_________________________________ 14 JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge 15

_________________________________ 16 JONATHAN B. SUTIN, Judge 17