In Re: William J. Connolly; Nancy A. Connolly, Debtors,william J. Connolly, Appellant, v. Susan L. Uecker, Appellee, 141 F.3d 1174 (9th Cir. 1998)

 Annotate this Case
US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit - 141 F.3d 1174 (9th Cir. 1998) .Submitted Mar. 10, 19982. Decided Mar. 19, 1998

Appeal from the Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel J.E. Ryan, Lawrence Ollason, and James W. Meyers, Judges, Presiding.

Before FLETCHER, BEEZER and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM1 

Debtor William Connolly appeals pro se the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel's dismissal as untimely of his appeal from the bankruptcy court's order and final decree in Connolly's Chapter 11 bankruptcy. Fed. R. Bankr.P. 8002 requires that a notice of appeal be filed with the BAP within 10 days of the bankruptcy court's entry of judgment. Connolly filed his notice of appeal 14 days after the bankruptcy court order. Because the "provisions of Bankruptcy Rule 8002 are jurisdictional; the untimely filing of a notice of appeal deprives the appellate court of jurisdiction to review the bankruptcy court's order." Saunders v. Band Plus Mortgage Corp. (In re Saunders), 31 F.3d 767, 767 (9th Cir. 1994). We reject Connolly's contention that Rule 8002 violates his due process rights as a disabled litigant. See Delaney v. Alexander (In re Delaney), 29 F.3d 516 (9th Cir. 1994).

Accordingly, the BAP's dismissal is

AFFIRMED.

 2

The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 9th Cir. R. 34-4

 1

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.