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 Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.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

v. NO. 32,583 4 ROBIN H. SMITH and 5 ALETA SMITH, 6 Defendants-Appellees. 7 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF QUAY COUNTY 8 Albert J. Mitchell, District Judge 9 Dusty Stone 10 San Jon, NM 11 Pro Se Appellant 12 Donald C. Schutte 13 Tucumcari, NM 14 for Appellees 15 MEMORANDUM OPINION 16 VANZI, Judge. 172 Plaintiff seeks to appeal from an order awarding summary judgment to 1 Defendants. We issued a notice of proposed summary disposition, proposing to 2 dismiss on the ground that the district court’s order is not final. Plaintiff has filed a 3 memorandum in opposition, which we haveduly considered. Because we remain 4 unpersuaded that this matter is properl y before us, we dismiss the appeal. 5 As we observed in the notice of proposed summary disposition, the right to 6 appeal is generally restricted to final judgments and decisions. SeeNMSA 1978, § 7 39-3-2 (1966); Kelly Inn No. 102 v. Kapnison , 113 N.M. 231, 235-36, 824 P.2d 1033, 8 1037-38 (1992). Insofar as Defendants’ counterclaims remain unresolved, the order 9 from which appeal has beentaken is not final. See Watson v. Blakely , 106 N.M. 687, 10 691, 748 P.2d 984, 988 (Ct. App. 1987) (“An order dispos ing of the issues contained 11 in the complaint but not the counterclaim is not a final judgment.”), overruled on 12 other grounds by Kelly Inn , 113 N.M. at 239, 824 P.2d at 1041; and see, e.g. , 13 Healthsource, Inc. v. X-Ray Assocs. of N.M. , 2005-NMCA-097, ¶¶ 11-15, 138 N.M. 14 70, 116 P.3d 861 (observing that appeal may only be taken if all issues have been 15 resolved by the order under consideration; where counterclaims remain, immediate 16 appeal is generally unavailable). 17 In his memorandum in opposition, we understand Plaintiff to argue that the 18 district court’s order should be regarded as final because it contains an award of 193 summary judgment. [MIO 1-3] However, not all awards of summary judgment are 1 final. In a case such as th is, where an award of summary judgment resolves all claims 2 associated with the complaint but leaves one or more counterclaims unresolved, the 3 judgment cannot be regarded as final. See, e.g. , City of Albuquerque v. Jackson , 101 4 N.M. 457, 458-59, 684 P.2d 543, 544-45 (Ct. App. 1984) (holding that although an 5 award of summary judgment disposed of all issues in connection with the original 6 complaint, insofar as it left a counterclai m unresolved, it was not a final judgment). 7 We perceive no basis for departing from the numerous previously-cited 8 authorities, which clearly reflect that the underlying decision is not directly appealable 9 as a matter of right. Accordingly, for th e reasons stated above and in the notice of 10 proposed summary disposition, we conclude that the district court’s order is not 11 immediately reviewable. The appealis therefore summarily dismissed. 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13

__________________________________ 14 LINDA M. VANZI, Judge 15 WE CONCUR: 16

_________________________________ 17 M. MONICA ZAMORA, Judge 184 _________________________________ 1 J. MILES HANISEE, Judge 2