Case Name: Jeffrey HOFFMAN, Appellant, v. Thomas R. LLOYD, Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-02-03
Citations: 591 F. App'x 624
Docket Number: No. 12-16898
Parties: Jeffrey HOFFMAN, Appellant, v. Thomas R. LLOYD, Appellee.
Judges: Before: CANBY, GOULD, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Bankruptcy Reporter
Volume: 525
Pages: 1160–1161

Head Matter:
Jeffrey HOFFMAN, Appellant, v. Thomas R. LLOYD, Appellee.
No. 12-16898.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 21, 2015.
Filed Feb. 3, 2015.
Jeffrey Hoffman, Fresno, CA, pro se.
Jeffrey Goodrich, Goodrich & Associates, Greenbrae, CA, for Appellee.
Before: CANBY, GOULD, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this cases is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Jeffrey Hoffman appeals pro se from the district court's order affirming the bankruptcy court's order granting sanctions against Hoffman in adversary proceedings relating to certain real property. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We review for clear error the district court's de novo examination of noncore related proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 157(c). Henderson v. Buchanan, 985 F.2d 1021, 1024 (9th Cir.1993). We affirm.
The district court did not clearly err in its de novo review of the bankruptcy court record. Accordingly, sanctions were proper because Hoffman failed to attend his deposition, failed to oppose Lloyd's motion to strike and for entry of default, and failed to file a motion for relief from the bankruptcy court's ruling after the bankruptcy court advised Hoffman that Lloyd's motion had been granted but that Hoffman could fíle a motion for relief explaining his conduct. See Wanderer v. Johnston, 910 F.2d 652, 656 (9th Cir.1990) (listing factors that a court should consider in determining the appropriateness of the sanction of dismissal).
We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time in the reply brief, including Hoffman's contentions concerning the damages hearing. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n. 2 (9th Cir.2009) (per curiam).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3. ed by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.