Case ID: br_568/html/0687-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

IN RE: James Karim MUHAMMAD, aka James Conway, Debtor. James Karim Muhammad, Appellant, v. North Richmond Senior Housing, Inc., Appellee.
    No. 15-60036
    TJnited States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted December 14, 2016 
    
    Filed December 21, 2016
    James Karim Muhammad, Pro Se
    
      Steven J. Mehlman, Kenneth D. Schnur, Attorney, Kimball Tirey & St. John LLP, Walnut Creek, CA, for Appellee
    Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App, P, 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

James Karim Muhammad appeals pro se from an order of the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (“BAP”) dismissing his bankruptcy appeal as untimely. We have jurisdiction under 28- U.S.C. § 158(d). We review de novo. Delaney v. Alexander (In, re Delaney), 29 F.3d 516, 517 (9th Cir. 1994). We affirm.

The BAP correctly dismissed Muhammad’s appeal because Muhammad failed to file the notice of appeal with the bankruptcy clerk within 14 ‘days of entry of the order being appealed as required by Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8002(a)(1). See 11 U.S.C. § 158(c)(2) (an appeal to the BAP or district court from a bankruptcy court must be taken within the time provided by Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8002); Anderson v. Mouradick (In re Mouradick), 13 F.3d 326, 327 (9th Cir. 1994) (“The provisions of Bankruptcy Rule 8002 are jurisdictional....”); see also Ramsey v. Ramsey (In re Ramsey), 612 F.2d 1220, 1223 (9th Cir. 1980) (declining to adopt a “mailbox rule” for Rule 8002(a) appeals).

Muhammad’s pending motions are denied as moot.

AFFIRMED. 
      
      
         This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.