JOHN STOKES V. ROBERT DRUMMOND, No. 17-60077 (9th Cir. 2018)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION APR 16 2018 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT In re: JOHN PATRICK STOKES, Debtor. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 17-60077 BAP No. 17-1085 -----------------------------MEMORANDUM* JOHN PATRICK STOKES, Appellant, v. ROBERT G. DRUMMOND, Chapter 13 Trustee, Appellee. Appeal from the Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel Kurtz, Faris, and Brand, Bankruptcy Judges, Presiding Submitted April 11, 2018** Before: SILVERMAN, PAEZ, and OWENS, Circuit Judges. John Patrick Stokes appeals pro se from the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel’s * 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). judgment affirming the bankruptcy court’s order denying reconsideration of its order denying Stokes’s motion to vacate the dismissal of his bankruptcy case. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We affirm. In his opening brief, Stokes fails to address how the bankruptcy court erred by denying his motion for reconsideration. As a result, Stokes has waived his challenge to the bankruptcy court’s order denying reconsideration. See Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir. 1999) (“[O]n appeal, arguments not raised by a party in its opening brief are deemed waived.”); Greenwood v. FAA, 28 F.3d 971, 977 (9th Cir. 1994) (“We will not manufacture arguments for an appellant, and a bare assertion does not preserve a claim . . . .”). We do not consider arguments incorporated by reference into the briefs. See Indep. Towers of Wash. v. Washington, 350 F.3d 925, 929 (9th Cir. 2003) (this court reviews only issues argued specifically in a party’s opening brief). Stokes’s request for oral argument (Docket Entry No. 9) is denied. AFFIRMED. 2 17-60077

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.