* After examining appellant’s brief and the appellate record, this panel has

determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2) and 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). 

## F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### SEP 23 2004 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk 

### UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

In Re: HOLLI LUNDAHL, Debtor.

HOLLI LUNDAHL, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. PAUL EVES; JOYLENE EVES; ROBERT HAMMON; BENLEY WILSON; CONNIE SMITH JOLLEY; HIDDEN VALE MGT. CO., INC.; DOES 1 THROUGH 100, Defendants-Appellees. No. 04-4040 (BAP No. UT-04-005) (Utah)



### ORDER *

Before SEYMOUR , LUCERO , and O’BRIEN , Circuit Judges.
Holli Lundahl, appearing pro se , appeals the order of the United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the Tenth Circuit (BA P) dismissing her bankruptcy-2-

appeal for failure to prosecute. The BAP found tha t Ms. Lundahl neither designated the record on appeal nor filed a stateme nt of the issues to be raised.
See F ED
. R. B ANKR
. P. 8006; 10 TH C IR
. BAP L.R. 8006-1(b). Furthermore, Ms. Lundahl failed to file a statement of interested pa rties. See 10 TH C IR
. BAP L.R. 8018-3. Accordingly, the court exercised its autho rity under F ED
. R. B ANKR
. P. 8001(a) and 10 TH C IR . BAP L.R. 8018-4 to dismiss the case for failure t o prosecute. We affirm the BAP’s determination that dismissal was warranted and deny Ms. Lundahl’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis

. On December 24, 2003, the bankruptcy court entered an order dismissing an adversary proceeding brought by Ms. Lundahl. Ms . Lundahl filed a timely notice of appeal to the BAP but her notice was not accompanied by the required filing and docketing fees. She subsequently filed an Application to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees, which the court denied. Within ten days after filing a notice of appeal, an appellant is directed by Federal Bankruptcy Rule 8006 to file with the clerk of the bankruptcy court a designation of the items to be included in the reco rd and a statement of the issues to be presented. F ED
. R. B ANKR
. P. 8006. BAP Rule 8018-3(f) requires an appellant to file a statement of interested parties within ten days after notice that the appeal has been docketed with the BAP, or when a party files a motion with the BAP, whichever is earlier. The BAP issued a no tice that the appeal had been-3-

docketed and set forth a filing deadline of January 20, 2004, for a statement of interested parties, a designation of record, and a statement of issues. The deadline expired and Ms. Lundahl failed to file the required papers. The BAP sent a Notice of Deficiency and Order to Sh ow Cause, requiring Ms. Lundahl to: (1) file a statement of interested parties pursuant to 10 TH C IR
. BAP L.R. 8018-3; (2) file a copy of the designation of record in accordance with Bankruptcy Rule 8006; and (3) file a copy of the st atement of issues in accordance with Bankruptcy Rule 8006. The BAP conc omitantly warned Ms. Lundahl that failure to comport with the court orde r would result in dismissal of her appeal. Ms. Lundahl did not respond. Accordin gly, the BAP dismissed the appeal for failure to prosecute. Ms. Lundahl then filed a motion to recall the BAP’s mandate, which the court denied. This appeal followed. We review a dismissal for failure to prosecute unde r an abuse of discretion standard. Nielsen v. Price , 17 F.3d 1276, 1277 (10th Cir. 1994) (finding no abu se of discretion in dismissing pro se bankruptcy appeal for failure to designate record on appeal, failure to file statement of issu es to be raised, and failure to file timely brief). The authority of a court to dismiss sua sponte for lack of prosecution has generally been considered an “inherent power,” governed not by rule or statute but by the control necessarily vest ed in courts to manage their own affairs so as to achieve the order ly and expeditious disposition of cases.-4-

Link v. Wabash R.R. Co. , 370 U.S. 626, 630-31 (1962). Dismissal for failu re to prosecute should be imposed only after careful exer cise of judicial discretion. See DeBardeleben v. Quinlan , 937 F.2d 502, 504 (10th Cir. 1991). Nonetheless, dismissal is an appropriate disposition against a p arty who disregards court orders and fails to proceed as required by court rules. Nat’l Hockey League v. Metro. Hockey Club, Inc. , 427 U.S. 639, 642-43 (1976). The BAP had the authority to take action it deemed appropriate, including dismissal, in response to Ms. Lundahl’s failure to comply with court orders and the procedures demanded by the Bankruptcy Rules. F ED
. R. B ANKR
. P. 8001(a). Ms. Lundahl does not dispute her failure to comply with the applicable rules for prosecution of her appeal. She has not paid the re quisite filing and docketing fees. The statement of interested parties, designa tion of record, and statement of issues have still not been filed. Moreover, Ms. Lu ndahl concedes that the BAP effectively warned her of the possibility of dismis sal in its issuance of the Notice of Deficiency and Order to Show Cause on January 22 , 2004. Aplt. Br. at 3-4. Ms. Lundahl’s sole contention before this court is that the BAP’s dismissal of her appeal is void for want of jurisdiction. Sh e specifically asserts that the BAP lacked jurisdiction over her appeal because the bankruptcy trial court lacked jurisdiction to enter the order dismissing the adve rsary proceeding. Ms. Lundahl’s jurisdictional argument fails. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 158(a), the BAP-5-

had jurisdiction over Ms. Lundahl’s appeal. The ba nkruptcy court’s order disposed of her adversary proceeding and is a final order subject to appeal. 28 U.S.C. § 158(a)(1). Likewise, Ms. Lundahl consente d to the BAP’s jurisdiction by filing a timely notice of appeal and failing to elect to have the appeal heard by a district court. 28 U.S.C. § 158(c)(1); F ED
. R. B ANKR
. P. 8001; 10 TH C IR
. BAP L.R. 8001-1. In sum, the BAP had jurisdiction over Ms. Lundahl’s appeal.
Pro se parties must follow the applicable rules of federa l procedure. Hunt v. Uphoff

, 199 F.3d 1220, 1223 (10th Cir. 1999); Nielsen , 17 F.3d at 1277. The BAP did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Ms. Lundahl’s appeal. For the reasons stated above, we DENY Ms. Lundahl’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis and AFFIRM the BAP’s dismissal for failure to prosecute.

ENTERED FOR THE COURT Stephanie K. Seymour United States Circuit Judge