ANTHONY WRIGHT, SR. V., No. 14-56854 (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FILED OCT 05 2016 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT In re: LORECE WRIGHT, No. 14-56854 Debtor. ______________________________ D.C. No. 2:11-cv-10267-CAS ANTHONY WRIGHT, Sr., MEMORANDUM* Appellant, v. BAYVIEW LOAN SERVICING, LLC; 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 affirming the bankruptcy court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We review de novo, Suncrest Healthcare Ctr. LLC v. Omega Healthcare Inv’rs, Inc. (In re Raintree Healthcare Corp.), 431 F.3d 685, 687 (9th Cir. 2005), and we affirm. The district court properly granted summary judgment because Wright failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact to support his state law claims. See Olsen v. Idaho State Bd. of Med., 363 F.3d 916, 922 (9th Cir. 1999) (an appellate court must determine, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, whether there are any genuine issues of material fact and whether the district court correctly applied the relevant substantive law). Contrary to Wright’s contention, Wright consented to the bankruptcy court’s jurisdiction. See Wellness Int’l Network, Ltd. v. Sharif, 135 S. Ct. 1932, 1942 (2015) (litigants may consent to adjudication by a bankruptcy court; consent may be express or implied); see also Roell v. Withrow, 538 U.S. 580 (2003) (inferring consent prevents a party from challenging jurisdiction after unfavorable rulings). We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief or arguments raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009). 2 14-56854 We do not consider Wright’s motion for reconsideration filed August 29, 2016 because, in its August 26, 2016 order, this court expressly stated that no motions for reconsideration of that order would be entertained. AFFIRMED. 3 14-56854
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.
