Case Name: IN RE: Dustin Roger CHANTEL; Elizabeth Darlene Chantel, Debtors. Dustin Roger Chantel; Elizabeth Darlene Chantel, Appellants, v. United States Trustee, Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-07-18
Citations: 694 F. App'x 508
Docket Number: No. 15-60055
Parties: IN RE: Dustin Roger CHANTEL; Elizabeth Darlene Chantel, Debtors. Dustin Roger Chantel; Elizabeth Darlene Chantel, Appellants, v. United States Trustee, Appellee.
Judges: Before: CANBY, KOZINSKI, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 694
Pages: 508–508

Head Matter:
IN RE: Dustin Roger CHANTEL; Elizabeth Darlene Chantel, Debtors. Dustin Roger Chantel; Elizabeth Darlene Chantel, Appellants, v. United States Trustee, Appellee.
No. 15-60055
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 11, 2017
Filed July 18, 2017
Dustin Roger Chantel, Pro Se
Elizabeth Darlene Chantel, Pro Se
Christopher Pattock, Trial Attorney, Office of the U.S. Trustee, Phoenix, AZ, John A. Postulka, Trial Attorney, DOJ—U.S.' Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Appellee
Before: CANBY, KOZINSKI, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Chapter 7 debtors Dustin Roger Chantel and Elizabeth Darlene Chantel appeal pro se from a judgment of the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel ("BAP") affirming the bankruptcy court's order denying the debtors a discharge. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We affirm.
In the opening brief, the debtors fail to address how the bankruptcy court erred in denying them a discharge. As a result, the debtors have waived their challenge to the bankruptcy court's order. See Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir. 1999) ("[0]n appeal, arguments not raised by a party in its opening brief are deemed waived."); Greenwood v. FAA, 28 F.3d 971, 977 (9th Cir. 1994) ("We review only issues which are argued specifically and distinctly in a party's opening brief.").
We reject as without merit the debtors' contentions concerning their right to a jury trial and court-appointed counsel, and regarding the timeliness of the United States Trustee's adversary proceeding complaint.
The debtors' "motion to grant default judgment under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 55" (Docket Entry No. 20) is denied.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.