Case Name: In re: Patricia A. MCCOLM, Debtor, Patricia A. McColm, Appellant, v. United States Bankruptcy Court; et al., Appellees, and Bank of New York, Trustee under the pooling and servicing agreement dated as of October 1994, by Independent National Mortgage Corporation, as its attorney-in-fact, and GMAC Mortgage Corporation, as subservicer; et al., Trustees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2002-11-22
Citations: 51 F. App'x 273
Docket Number: No. 01-15905; D.C. Nos. CV-00-04008-MJJ, CV-00-04155-MJJ, CV-00-04188-MJJ, CV-00-04223-MJJ, CV-00-04587-MJJ
Parties: In re: Patricia A. MCCOLM, Debtor, Patricia A. McColm, Appellant, v. United States Bankruptcy Court; et al., Appellees, and Bank of New York, Trustee under the pooling and servicing agreement dated as of October 1994, by Independent National Mortgage Corporation, as its attorney-in-fact, and GMAC Mortgage Corporation, as subservicer; et al., Trustees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 51
Pages: 273–274

Head Matter:
In re: Patricia A. MCCOLM, Debtor, Patricia A. McColm, Appellant, v. United States Bankruptcy Court; et al., Appellees, and Bank of New York, Trustee under the pooling and servicing agreement dated as of October 1994, by Independent National Mortgage Corporation, as its attorney-in-fact, and GMAC Mortgage Corporation, as subservicer; et al., Trustees.
No. 01-15905.
D.C. Nos. CV-00-04008-MJJ, CV-00-04155-MJJ, CV-00-04188-MJJ, CV-00-04223-MJJ, CV-00-04587-MJJ.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 18, 2002.
Decided Nov. 22, 2002.
Before REINHARDT, RYMER, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Ac cordingly, we deny appellant's request for oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Patricia A. McColm appeals pro se the district court's order dismissing her appeals from orders of the bankruptcy court. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We review for abuse of discretion a dismissal for failure to comply with a local rule of the district court, Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir.1995) (per curiam), and we affirm.
"The trial court's dismissal should not be disturbed unless there is a definite and firm conviction that the court below committed a clear error of judgment in the conclusion it reached upon a weighing of the relevant factors." Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir.1992) (internal quotations omitted). We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing appellant's action for failing to comply with a local rule regarding the briefing schedule. Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53.
Appellant's motion to strike the answering brief is denied.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.