Case Name: In re: Johnny F. HARRIS, Debtor. Johnny F. Harris, Appellant, v. The Boyd G. Montgomery Testamentary Trust; The Law Firm of Chisenhall, Nestrud & Julian; Mark W. Hodge, Appellees, In re: Johnny F. Harris, Debtor. Johnny F. Harris, Appellant, v. The Boyd G. Montgomery Testamentary Trust, Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-05-12
Citations: 277 F. App'x 645
Docket Number: No. 07-1977
Parties: In re: Johnny F. HARRIS, Debtor. Johnny F. Harris, Appellant, v. The Boyd G. Montgomery Testamentary Trust; The Law Firm of Chisenhall, Nestrud & Julian; Mark W. Hodge, Appellees, In re: Johnny F. Harris, Debtor. Johnny F. Harris, Appellant, v. The Boyd G. Montgomery Testamentary Trust, Appellee.
Judges: Before BYE, M. SMITH, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Bankruptcy Reporter
Volume: 393
Pages: 645–646

Head Matter:
In re: Johnny F. HARRIS, Debtor. Johnny F. Harris, Appellant, v. The Boyd G. Montgomery Testamentary Trust; The Law Firm of Chisenhall, Nestrud & Julian; Mark W. Hodge, Appellees, In re: Johnny F. Harris, Debtor. Johnny F. Harris, Appellant, v. The Boyd G. Montgomery Testamentary Trust, Appellee.
No. 07-1977.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted: May 7, 2008.
Filed: May 12, 2008.
Johnny F. Harris, Little Rock, AR, pro se.
Mark W. Hodge, Chisenhall & Nestrud, Little Rock, AR, for Appellee.
Before BYE, M. SMITH, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Johnny Harris appeals the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel's (BAP's) decision to dismiss, for failure to prosecute, his appeals from two bankruptcy court orders. The BAP did not abuse its discretion. The BAP granted Harris two extensions of time to file his brief, and gave him notice that no further extensions would be granted, yet he still did not file his brief by the second extended date. See In re Beachport Entm't, 396 F.3d 1083, 1086-87 (9th Cir.2005) (BAP's imposition of sanctions, including summary dismissal for non-compliance with procedural requirement, is reviewed for abuse of discretion and court does not reach merits of bankruptcy court's ruling); see also In re Tampa Chain Co., Inc., 835 F.2d 54, 55 (2d Cir.1987) (per curiam) (district court's decision dismissing bankruptcy appeal for failure to timely file brief will be affirmed unless court has abused discretion); cf. Soliman v. Johanns, 412 F.3d 920, 921-22 (8th Cir.2005) (although pro se litigant suffered extreme family hardship, court did not abuse its discretion in denying request for extension to file response; court merely enforced deadline and even pro se litigants must comply with court rules and directives).
Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
. The Honorable Audrey R. Evans, Chief Judge, United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas.