This memorandum opinion was not selected for pub lication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports. Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restricti ons on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.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. 1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 2 JOHN LUJAN, 3 Plaintiff-Appellant, 4

v. NO. 32,631 5 GENERAL MOTORS 6 ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION, and 7 its subsidiary MOTORS INSURANCE 8 CORPORATION, NEW MEXICO MOTOR 9 COMPANY, INC., d/b/a LEXUS OF SANTA FE, 10 NEW MEXICO STATE POLICE OFFICER 11 WILLIAM HYOZ, NEW MEXICO STATE 12 POLICE PATROLMAN PENNY RYAN and 13 ANTHONY GUTIERREZ, 14 Defendants-Appellees. 15

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF SANTA FE COUNTY 16 Raymond Z. Ortiz, District Judge 17 John Lujan 18 Las Vegas, NM 19 Pro se Appellant 20 French & Associates, P.C. 21 Joel M. Young 22 Albuquerque, NM 232 for Appellees Hayoz and Ryan 1

Esquivel Law Firm, LLC 2 Albuquerque, NM 3 Rosales Law Group, P.C. 4 David Ray Rosales 5 Albuquerque, NM 6 for Appellees General Motors Acceptance Corporation 7

MEMORANDUM OPINION 8 GARCIA, Judge. 9
{1} Appellant appeals from the district court’s order dismissing the second amended 10 complaint as to Appellees, Officers William Hayoz and Penny Ryan. [DS 4] Appellant 11 continues to argue that the district court erred in dismissing on grounds that Officers 12 Hayoz and Ryan were immune from suit. This Court’s first notice of proposed 13 disposition proposed to affirm the district court’s order. Appellee filed a memorandum 14 in support and Appellant filed a memorandum in opposition to the proposed 15 disposition. Not persuaded by Appellant’s ar guments, we affirm the district court’s 16 order of dismissal. 17
{2} This Court’s first notice proposed to a ffirm on the basis that assuming without 18 deciding that NMSA 1978, Section 29-2-18 (1979), creates a duty on the state police 193 with regard to the registration of motor vehicles, the immunity granted to Officers 1 Hayoz and Ryan under the New Mexico Tort Claims Act (Act), NMSA 1978, Section 2 41-4-4(A) (2001), was not rendered inapplicab le under the personal injury or property 3 damage provisions of NMSA 1978, Section 41-4-12 (1977). [CN 4-5] 4
{3} “Our courts have repeatedly held th at, in summary cale ndar cases, the burden 5 is on the party opposing the proposed disposition to clearly point out errors in fact or 6 law.” Hennessy v. Duryea , 1998-NMCA-036, ¶ 24, 124 N.M. 754, 955 P.2d 683. 7 Appellant asserts that he lost a significant amount of money as a result of the state 8 officers’ negligence, and continues to ar gue that the loss of property constitutes 9 property damage. See State v. Mondragon , 1988-NMCA-027, ¶ 10, 107 N.M. 421, 10 759 P.2d 1003 (stating that a party responding to a summary calendar notice must 11 come forward and specifically point out errors of law and fact , and the repetition of 12 earlier arguments does not fulfill this require ment). [MIO 2] However, Appellant did 13 not lose actual money or curre ncy, and the loss of property is an economic loss which, 14 as noted in the first calendar notice, is not a type of injury that is specifically waived 15 under the Act. See Valdez v. State , 2002-NMSC-028, ¶ 9, 132 N.M. 667, 54 P.3d 71 16 (concluding that because economic compulsion and constructive fraud claims have not 17 specifically been waived by th e Tort Claims Act, the government is immune from suit 18 for these causes of actions). Where a part y cites no authority to support an argument, 194 we may assume no such authority exists. In re Adoption of Doe , 1984-NMSC-024, ¶ 1 2, 100 N.M. 764, 676 P.2d 1329. 2
{4} For these reasons, and those stated in the first notice of proposed disposition, 3 we affirm the district court’s order dismissing Appellant’s negligence claim as to 4 Officers Hayoz and Ryan. 5
{5} IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 7 TIMOTHY L. GARCIA, Judge 8

WE CONCUR: 9

10 JONATHAN B. SUTIN, Judge 11

12 CYNTHIA A. FRY, Judge 13