NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________ No. 20

- 3071

___________ In re: BERNARD ANDREW ROTHMAN , Appellant

____________________________________ On Appeal from the U nited States District Court for the District of N ew Jersey (D .N.J. Civil Action No. 1:19-c v -19792) District Judge: Honorable J udge Robert B. Kugler

____________________________________ Submitted Pursu a nt to Third Circuit LAR 34. 1 (a)

March 25, 2021 Before: JORDAN, MATEY, and NYGA ARD, Circuit Judges

(Opin ion fi led Mar ch 25, 2021)

___________ OPINION *

___________ PER CURIAM
Pro se appella nt Bernar d Andrew Rothman ap peals from the District Court’s denial
of his mo tion for reconsideration

. For t he rea sons that follow, we wi ll a ffirm th e District Court’s judgment. In 2006, Rothman purchased a property with a loan that was secured by a mortgage.

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent.2

Wells Fargo Bank was subsequently assigned the mortgage. 1 Rothman filed for bankruptcy in 2019, ultimately proceeding under Chapter 7. T he trustee who had been appointed pursuant to Chapter 7 abandoned any interest in the estate of Rothman’s property

. Rothman objected to the abandonment , but the Bankruptcy Court overruled Rothman’s objection after a hearing. Rothman appealed that decision to the District Court. In June 2020, the District Court ordered Rothman to produce a copy of the hearing transcript regarding the t rustee’s abandonment or show good cause for why the transcript
was unnecessary to review the Bankruptcy Court’s decision

. The District Court warned that it would dismiss Rothman’s appeal if he failed to comply with its order. When Rothman did not respond, t he District Court dismiss ed Rothman’s appeal

. Rothman filed
a motion for reconsideration of the dismissal. The District Court denied his motion. Rothman timely appealed. We have jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § § 158(d) and 1291. As relevant here, w e review a district court’s denial of a motion for reconsideration for abuse
of discretion. 2 See Cureton v. Nat ’ l Collegiate Athletic Ass ’ n , 252 F.3d 267, 272 (3d Cir. 2001)

. We discern no abuse of discretion in the District Court’s denial of Rothman’s

1 Because we write primarily for the parties, we recite only the facts and procedural history necessary for our discussion.

2 In his appellate brief, Rothman does not challenge the District Court’s underlying order dismissing his appeal , so he has forfeited any challenge to that decision. See United States v. Pelullo , 399 F.3d 197, 222 (3d Cir. 2005).3

motion. The motion was not based on a proper ground for reconsideration, such as an intervening change in law, newly discovered evidence, or “the need to correct a clear error of law or fact or to prevent manifest injustice.” Max ’s Seafood Cafe ex rel. Lou

- Ann, Inc. v. Quinteros , 176 F.3d 669, 677 (3d Cir. 1999)

. Rather, Rothman sought reconsideration based on arguments about Wells Fargo’s standing and errors made by the Bankruptcy
Court. His arguments did not address the District Court’s need for a transcript to review
the Bankr uptcy Court’s decision or explain why the transcript was unnecessary. Rothman’s appellate brief similarly makes no mention of the transcript. 3 Accordingly, f

or the reasons above, we will affirm the judgment of the District
Court.

3 In his appellate br ief, Rothman appears to seek review of other decisions; however, those orders are beyond the scope of this appeal. In particular, Rothman challenge s a Bankruptcy Court decision to vacate an automatic stay and related Bankruptcy Court orders . However, tho se decisions were at issue in a District Court case that is separate from the District Court case underlying this appeal. Similarly, his conclusory allegations of constitutional violations and ex parte communications by Wells Fargo are related to the orde r vacating the stay and entirely separate from the Bankruptcy Court’s decision regarding Rothman’s objection to the trustee’s abandonment of an interest in the estate of his property. Further, to the extent that Rothman vaguely alleges bias by the Bankrup tcy Judge and the District Judge, the record contains no evidence of bias.