1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

WESTERN DIVISION

In re: DWIGHT EARL JONES, Case No. 1:17-cv-735 

Dlott, J. 

 Bowman, M.J. 

 

 

 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

This is a pro se appeal from an Order of the United States Bankruptcy Court for 

the Southern District of Ohio in the Chapter 7 proceeding styled In re Dwight Jones, Case 

No. 17-11687. Specifically, before the Court is Appellant's brief (Doc. 8). 

Plaintiff/appellant seeks judicial review of the Bankruptcy Court’s dismissal of his petition.

I. Background and Facts 

The evidence of record shows that Plaintiff filed a petition for bankruptcy on or 

about May 8, 2017. (Doc. 2, Ex. 1). Thereafter, on July 26, 2017, the bankruptcy trustee 

filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s bankruptcy petition based upon Plaintiff’s failure to 

provide the trustee with information to conduct a 341 meeting. (Doc. 2, PAGEID 50-52). 

A hearing on the motion was held on September 26, 2017, wherein both Trustee and 

Debtor appeared. The bankruptcy judge granted Trustee’s motion to dismiss on 

September 27, 2017. (Id. at 71). Plaintiff then filed a motion to vacate and set aside the 

order dismissing the case. The Bankruptcy Court determined that the motion did not 

provide any new evidence for the Court to consider. As such, the motion was overruled. 
2 

Thereafter, Plaintiff filed the instant action seeking reconsideration of the 

bankruptcy court’s dismissal. For the reasons outlined below, Plaintiff’s appeal is not 

well-taken. 

II. Analysis 

In a bankruptcy appeal, the district court reviews a ruling on a motion for 

reconsideration under the abuse of discretion standard. United Mine Workers of Am. 1974 

Plan and Trust v. Lexington Loan Co. (In re HNRC Dissolution Co.), 396 B.R. 461, 465 

(B.A.P. 6th Cir. 2008); Hamerly v. Fifth Third Mortgage Co. (In re J & M Salupo Dev. Co.), 

388 B.R. 795, 800 (B.A.P. 6th Cir. 2008). “An abuse of discretion occurs only when the 

trial court relies upon clearly erroneous findings of fact or when it improperly applies the 

law or uses an erroneous legal standard.” United Mine Workers of Am. 1974 Plan and 

Trust, 396 B.R. at 465. 

Applying the relevant standard, the undersigned finds no abuse of discretion in the 

bankruptcy court’s decision. Notably, the Trustee moved to dismiss Plaintiff’s bankruptcy 

petition because his schedules were incomplete, not accurate and factually incorrect. 

(Doc. 2, PageID 50). The Trustee further noted that Plaintiff failed to bring information 

sought by the trustee on numerous occasions. Id. Thereafter, a hearing was held on the 

motion to dismiss, at which the trustee and Plaintiff appeared and testified. The 

bankruptcy judge granted the motion to dismiss. Plaintiff then filed a motion to vacate 

and set aside the order dismissing the case for failure to give the trustee information to 

conduct 341 meeting. As detailed above, the Bankruptcy Court determined that the 

motion did not provide any new evidence for the Court to consider. As such the 

Bankruptcy Court’s decision is supported by the evidence of record and applicable law. 
3 

III. Conclusion 

For these reasons the undersigned concludes that the Bankruptcy Court did not 

err in either its findings of fact or conclusions of law, and therefor hereby RECOMMENDS

that the decision of the Bankruptcy Court be AFFIRMED, and that this matter be 

CLOSED. 

s/Stephanie K. Bowman 

 Stephanie K. Bowman 

 United States Magistrate Judge 
4 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

WESTERN DIVISION

In re: DWIGHT EARL JONES, Case No. 1:17-cv-735 

Dlott, J. 

 Bowman, M.J. 

 

NOTICE

 Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), any party may serve and file specific, written 

objections to this Report & Recommendation (“R&R”) within FOURTEEN (14) DAYS after 

being served with a copy thereof. That period may be extended further by the Court on 

timely motion by either side for an extension of time. All objections shall specify the 

portion(s) of the R&R objected to, and shall be accompanied by a memorandum of law in 

support of the objections. A party shall respond to an opponent’s objections within 

FOURTEEN DAYS after being served with a copy of those objections. Failure to make 

objections in accordance with this procedure may forfeit rights on appeal. See Thomas 

v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981).