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 Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.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 fr om 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 MARGETTE WEBSTER and DAVID WEBSTER 2 Plaintiffs-Appellees, 3 v. No. 34,535 Consolidated with 34,755 4 EMMA SERNA, d/b/a SERNA & 5 ASSOCIATES CONSTRUCTION 6 CO., L.L.C. a/k/a/ SERNA & 7 ASSOCIATES, 8 Defendant-Appellant. 9 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY 10 Beatrice J. Brickhouse, District Judge 11 Alex Chisholm 12 Albuquerque, NM 13 for Appellees 14 Emma Serna 15 Albuquerque, NM 16 Pro Se Appellant 17 MEMORANDUM OPINION 18 ZAMORA, Judge. 19
{1} Emma Serna d/b/a Serna & Associates Construction Co., L.L.C., a/k/a Serna & 20 Associates (Appellant) attempts to appeal fro m various district court orders. Both this 212 Court’s first and second calendar notices proposed to affirm the district court. 1 Appellant filed a memorandum in opposition to the second notice of proposed 2 disposition as well as a letter and numerous pleadings in the fo rm of requests and 3 motions. We remain unpersuaded and affirm the district court. 4
{2} We note that Appellant filed a notice of appeal from the district court’s 5 judgment adopting the arbitration award th at was docketed under Court of Appeals 6 Case No. 34,755. Because that appeal invol ves the same underlying action appealed 7 from in this case, we consolidate the appeals by an accompanying order. 8
{3} Initially, we address the numerous pleadings filed by Appellant with this Court. 9 First, we do not consider Appellant’s letter or “Answer to Appellee’s Memorandum 10 in Support of Summary Affirmance” because they do not conform with our Rules of 11 Appellate Procedure regarding a proper re sponse to a calendar notice. Rule 12- 12 210(D)(3) NMRA provides for the filing of a memorandum in opposition “setting 13 forth reasons why the proposed disposition s hould or should not bemade and why the 14 case should or should not be assigned to the summary calendar.” We do not construe 15 Appellant’s letter and answer as conforming to this rule and limit our consideration 16 to the assertions contained in the informal memorandum in opposition. 17
{4} Appellant also filed numerous pleadings entitled as requests and motions, which 18 we deny. Appellant filed a motion for the recusal of the calendaring judge asserting 193 bias on the basis that her refusals to perfo rm Appellant’s requests exhibit her bias and 1 prejudice against Appellant. Appellant esse ntially alleges thatthe calendaring judge 2 ruled contrary to her interest , which does not constitute bias. See Albuquerque 3 Bernalillo Cty. Water Util. Auth . v. N.M. Pub. Reg. Comm’n , 2010-NMSC-013, ¶ 42, 4 148 N.M. 21, 229 P.3d 494 (indicating that it is well settled that “adverse rulings do 5 not constitute bias”); State v. Hernandez , 1993-NMSC-007, ¶ 44, 115 N.M. 6, 846 6 P.2d 312 (“Personal bias cannot be in ferred from an adverse ruling[.]”); United 7 Nuclear Corp. v. Gen. Atomic Co. , 1980-NMSC-094, ¶ 425, 96 N.M. 155, 629 P.2d 8 231 (“Rulings adverse to a party do not nece ssarily evince a personal bias or prejudice 9 on the part of the judge against it even if the rulings are later found to have been 10 legally incorrect.”). 11
{5} Appellant also filed the following pleadi ngs: (1) “Motion for Writ of Errors and 12 Issues of Fraud by Arbitrators Vacate Award”; (2) “Evidence of the Voluntarily 13 Accepting Something of Value that Influen ced the Performance of the Officers of the 14 Court,” where she alleges that both the judge below and opposing counsel paid off 15 their mortgages and need to be investigatedfor their corruption; (3) “Request for the 16 Court to Overrule Both Arbitrations and Ru le by the Enforced Contract,” wherein she 17 repeats the facts and procedural history leading up to the order to arbitrate and 18 subsequent orders entered below; and (4) “Motion to Introduce the Following 194 Evidence,” in which she makes allegations that she contends are proof of the 1 corruption by the judge and opposing counsel below. 2
{6} We deny Appellant’s request s and motions. The motions fail to comply with 3 Rule 12-309(C) NMRA, which requires the moving party to recite whether any other 4 party opposes the motion or why the other party’s position was not obtained. See 5
Newsome v. Farer , 1985-NMSC-096, ¶ 18, 103 N.M . 415, 708 P.2d 327 (“Although 6 pro se pleadings are viewed with tolerance, a pro se litigant, having chosen to 7 represent himself [or herself], is held to the same standard of conduct and compliance 8 with court rules, procedures, and orders as are members of the bar.” (internal citation 9 omitted)). In addition, they assert the same arguments Appellant continues to repeat 10 concerning her claims of error by the district court below in acting without jurisdiction 11 and this Court’s failure to prohibit the arb itration from occurring and to investigate the 12 alleged fraud by opposing counsel, the two arb itrators, and the presiding judge below. 13 These arguments were addre ssed in the first and second calendar notices, to which 14 Appellant had an opportunity to respond in her memorandum in opposition. For the 15 reasons above, we deny all of Appellant’s requests and motions. 16
{7} Appellant’s memorandum in opposition repeats the same arguments asserted 17 below and throughout the pendency of the appeal. Appellant continues to challenge 18 the district court judge’s actions below based on bias, prejudice and impropriety, but 195 does not point to any specific legal errors supported by authority. This Court’s first 1 and second notices of proposed disposition explain that while Appellant continuously 2 asserts she was aggrieved be low, the district court’s ac tions were supported by law. 3 Appellant’s bare assertions and allegations of impropriety, absent supporting legal 4 authority, do not suffice to meet her burden on appeal. See Hennessy v. Duryea , 5 1998-NMCA-036, ¶ 24, 124 N.M. 754, 955 P.2d 683 (“Our courts have repeatedly 6 held that, in summary calendar cases, th e burden is on the party opposing the proposed 7 disposition to clearly point out errors in fact or law.”). “A party responding to a 8 summary calendar notice must come forward and specifically point out errors of law 9 and fact[,]” and the repetition of earlier arguments does not fulfill this requirement. 10 State v. Mondragon , 1988-NMCA-027, ¶ 10, 107 N.M. 421, 759 P.2d 1003, 11 superseded by statute on other groundsas stated in State v. Harris , 2013-NMCA-031, 12 ¶ 3, 297 P.3d 374; see Griffin v. Thomas , 1997-NMCA-009, ¶ 7, 122 N.M. 826, 932 13 P.2d 516 (“[A]n issue is deemed abandoned where a party fails to respond to the 14 calendar notice’s proposed disposition of the issue[.]”); Taylor v. Van Winkle’s IGA 15 Farmer’s Mkt ., 1996-NMCA-111, ¶ 5, 122 N.M. 486, 927 P.2d 41 (same). 16
{8} For all of the above reasons, as well as those stated in this Court’s first and 17 second notices of proposed disposition, we affirm the district court. 18
{9} IT IS SO ORDERED. 196 1 M. MONICA ZAMORA, Judge 2 WE CONCUR: 3

4 MICHAEL D. BUSTAMANTE, Judge 5

6 JONATHAN B. SUTIN, Judge 7