UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

_________________________________ 

GERALD E. VALLEJOS, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant, 

v. 

LOVELACE MEDICAL CENTER; THE 

2ND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, 

NEW MEXICO, 

 Defendants - Appellees, 

No. 17-2090 

(D.C. No. 1:17-CV-00183-PJK-WPL) 

(D.N.M.) 

_________________________________ 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

_________________________________ 

Before LUCERO, O’BRIEN, and MORITZ, Circuit Judges. 

_________________________________ 

Proceeding pro se, Gerald Vallejos appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 

complaint.1 See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Exercising de novo review, see Smith v. 

United States, 561 F.3d 1090, 1098 (10th Cir. 2009), we affirm. 

 *

 After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined 

unanimously that oral argument wouldn’t materially assist in the determination of 

this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore 

ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment isn’t binding 

precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral 

estoppel. But it may be cited for its persuasive value. See Fed. R. App. P. 32.1; 

10th Cir. R. 32.1. 

1

 Because Vallejos proceeds pro se, we liberally construe his filings. See 

Gallagher v. Shelton, 587 F.3d 1063, 1067 (10th Cir. 2009). But it’s not our role to 

act as his advocate. See id.

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit 

August 24, 2017

Elisabeth A. Shumaker 

Clerk of Court
2 

Vallejos brought suit in federal district court against Lovelace Health System, 

Inc. (Lovelace)2

 and the Second Judicial District Court of New Mexico, alleging 

“[h]onest services [f]raud.” R. vol. 1, 7. On April 14, 2017, the district court 

dismissed the complaint against the Second Judicial District Court without prejudice 

for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. It subsequently granted Lovelace’s motion to 

dismiss on May 5, 2017, and entered judgment to that effect on May 8, 2017. 

On appeal, Vallejos argues that the district court erred in granting Lovelace’s 

motion to dismiss.3

 Specifically, he asserts that the district court erred in failing to 

recognize “that the state district court . . . granted [Vallejos] judgment on his 

defamation claim.” R. vol. 1, 107. But we have reviewed the transcript that Vallejos 

cites and agree with the federal district court: the state district court unambiguously 

granted summary judgment to Lovelace—and not to Vallejos—on Vallejos’ 

 2

 Vallejos refers to Lovelace as “Lovelace Medical Center.” R. vol. 1, 5. But 

Lovelace asserts that this isn’t its actual title. 

3

 To the extent Vallejos seeks to challenge the district court’s April 14, 2017 

order dismissing his complaint against the Second Judicial District Court, we lack 

jurisdiction to review that order; Vallejos filed his notice of appeal on June 2, 2017, 

and he designated therein only the district court’s May 5, 2017 and May 8, 2017 

order and final judgment. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A) (“In a civil case, . . . the 

notice of appeal . . . must be filed with the district clerk within 30 days after entry of 

the judgment or order appealed from.”); Fed. R. App. P. 3(c)(1)(B) (requiring notice 

of appeal to “designate the judgment, order, or part thereof being appealed”); 

Williams v. Akers, 837 F.3d 1075, 1078 (10th Cir. 2016) (“Like Rule 4(a)(1)(A)’s 30-

day filing deadline, Rule 3(c)(1)(B)’s designation requirement is jurisdictional.”). 

Likewise, because Vallejos failed to timely appeal the district court’s June 27, 2017 

order granting Lovelace’s motion for attorney’s fees, we lack jurisdiction to review 

that order as well. See E.E.O.C. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 187 F.3d 1241, 1250 (10th 

Cir. 1999) (“[A] supplemental notice of appeal is required for us to have jurisdiction 

over an [attorney’s fee] issue that becomes final subsequent to the initial notice of 

appeal.”). 
3 

defamation claim. Because Vallejos doesn’t identify any other potential errors in the 

district court’s ruling, we affirm. 

Entered for the Court 

Nancy L. Moritz 

Circuit Judge