09-3294-bk
In re: Michaelesco
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
SUMMARY ORDER
RULINGS BY SUM M ARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUM M ARY
ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERM ITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE
OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. W HEN CITING A SUM M ARY
ORDER IN A DO CUM ENT FILED W ITH THIS COURT, A PARTY M UST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL
APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (W ITH THE NOTATION “SUM M ARY ORDER”). A PARTY
CITING A SUM M ARY ORDER M UST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY
COUNSEL.
At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held
at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of
New York, on the 22nd day of September, two thousand ten.
PRESENT:
ROGER J. MINER,
ROBERT D. SACK,
PETER W. HALL,
Circuit Judges.
__________________________________________
Daniel Michaelesco, Ortansa Michaelesco,
Appellants,
v. 09-3294-bk
Molly T. Whiton,
Appellee.
__________________________________________
FOR APPELLANTS: Daniel and Ortansa Michaelesco, pro se, Fairfield, CT.
FOR APPELLEE: Molly T. Whiton, Hartford, CT.
Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut
(Haight, J.).
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND
DECREED that the judgment of the district court be AFFIRMED.
Appellants Daniel and Ortansa Michaelesco, pro se, appeal the district court’s judgment
dismissing, sua sponte, their appeal from an order of the bankruptcy court for failure to comply
with Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8006 and 8009. Although the Michaelescos do not assert that they satisfied
the procedural requirements of those rules, they contend on appeal that their non-compliance did
not warrant dismissal in light of their excusable neglect. We assume the parties’ familiarity with
the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.
We review for abuse of discretion a district court’s determination that a party failed to
establish excusable neglect. See In re Lynch, 430 F.3d 600, 603 (2d Cir. 2005) (per curiam). Our
review of the record indicates that the district court afforded the Michaelescos more than six
months to comply with Rules 8006 and 8009 before sua sponte ordering them to show cause why
their appeal should not be dismissed; that before dismissing their appeal, the district court granted
the Michaelescos’ request for an extension to file the necessary documents, which they nonetheless
failed to do; and that the Michaelescos never presented any explanation for their inability to
comply with these rules. Based on these considerations, we cannot say that the district court
abused its discretion by dismissing their appeal. We have considered all of the Michaelescos’
arguments and find them to be without merit; accordingly, there is no basis upon which to vacate
the district court’s judgment.
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is hereby AFFIRMED.
FOR THE COURT:
Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
2