NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 21 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
In re: LARRY TEVIS; NANCY TEVIS, No. 16-60063
Debtors. BAP No. 15-1111
______________________________
LARRY TEVIS; NANCY TEVIS, MEMORANDUM*
Appellants,
v.
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
VETERANS AFFAIRS; JAN P. JOHNSON,
Chapter 13 Trustee,
Appellees.
Appeal from the Ninth Circuit
Bankruptcy Appellate Panel
Taylor, Jury, and Dunn, Bankruptcy Judges, Presiding
Submitted November 15, 2017**
Before: CANBY, TROTT, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Larry Tevis and Nancy Tevis appeal pro se from a judgment of the
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (“BAP”) affirming the bankruptcy court’s judgment
dismissing their adversary proceeding for failure to prosecute. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We review de novo BAP decisions, and
apply the same standard of review that the BAP applied to the bankruptcy court’s
ruling. Boyajian v. New Falls Corp. (In re Boyajian), 564 F.3d 1088, 1090 (9th
Cir. 2009). We affirm.
The bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing appellants’
adversary proceeding because the bankruptcy court properly applied the factors for
determining whether to dismiss a case for failure to prosecute, and its findings are
supported by the record. See Moneymaker v. CoBen (In re Eisen), 31 F.3d 1447,
1451 (9th Cir. 1994) (setting forth standard of review and five factors considered
when determining whether to dismiss a bankruptcy proceeding for failure to
prosecute).
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
We reject as without merit appellants’ contention that the BAP violated due
process.
AFFIRMED.
2 16-60063