Opinion
No. 15-55939
02-23-2018
In re: ANTHONY VANDERPLOEG, Debtor. JACQUES POWERS, Appellant, v. ANTHONY VANDERPLOEG, Appellee.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
D.C. No. 5:15-cv-00026-PA MEMORANDUM Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California
Percy Anderson, District Judge, Presiding Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Jacques Powers appeals pro se from the district court's order affirming the bankruptcy court's order denying Powers's motion to reopen his dismissed adversary proceeding. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We review de novo the decision of the bankruptcy court without deference to the district court's decision. In re AFI Holding, Inc., 525 F.3d 700, 702 (9th Cir. 2008). We affirm.
The bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion by denying Powers's motion to vacate its order dismissing the adversary proceeding because Powers failed to identify any grounds for relief. See Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9024 (making Fed. R. Civ. P. 60 applicable to bankruptcy cases); Casey v. Albertson's Inc., 362 F.3d 1254, 1257 (9th Cir. 2004) (setting forth standard of review).
Because Powers's notice of appeal in the bankruptcy court was not timely as to the bankruptcy court's order dismissing the adversary proceeding, we do not consider Powers's challenges to that order. See Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8002(b) (Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion tolls appeal period only if filed within 14 days of judgment, order or decree); Anderson v. Mouradick (In re Mouradick), 13 F.3d 326, 327 (9th Cir. 1994) (provisions of Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8002 are jurisdictional); see also Delaney v. Alexander (In re Delaney), 29 F.3d 516, 518 (9th Cir. 1994) (parties have an affirmative duty to monitor the docket). We also do not consider Powers's arguments related to the merits of his underlying claims.
AFFIRMED.