ANTHONY WRIGHT V., No. 14-56852 (9th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED OCT 05 2016 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT In re: LORECE WRIGHT, No. 14-56852 Debtor. ______________________________ D.C. No. 2:11-cv-10248-CAS ANTHONY WRIGHT, Sr., MEMORANDUM* Appellant, v. BAYVIEW LOAN SERVICING, LLC, a limited liability company; et al., Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Christina A. Snyder, District Judge, Presiding Submitted September 27, 2016 ** Before: TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges. * 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). Anthony Wright, Sr. appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing for failure to prosecute Lorece Wright’s appeal from the bankruptcy court’s order granting summary judgment. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We review for an abuse of discretion. Morrissey v. Stutville (In re Morrissey), 349 F.3d 1187, 1190 (9th Cir. 2003). We affirm. The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Lorece Wright’s bankruptcy appeal for failure to prosecute because it warned her that a failure to file an opening brief on her own behalf would result in dismissal, gave her a 30day extension of time to obtain counsel or file her opening brief, and did not dismiss the appeal until two years after she failed to submit her opening brief. See Moneymaker v. CoBen (In re Eisen), 31 F.3d 1447, 1451 (9th Cir. 1994) (discussing factors courts must consider when deciding whether to dismiss for failure to prosecute). Because we affirm the district court’s dismissal for failure to prosecute, we do not consider Lorece Wright’s challenges to the bankruptcy court’s orders granting summary judgment. See In re Morrissey, 349 F.3d at 1190. We reject as without merit Lorece Wright’s contentions that the bankruptcy court lacked jurisdiction 2 14-56852 Lorece Wright’s requests, set forth in the opening and reply briefs, are denied. AFFIRMED. 3 14-56852
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.
