Case Name: John MACMULLIN, Appellant, v. William G. POACH, Jr.; Lynn M. Anderson; Donald Childers; Peter M. Williams; Marion Hubbard; Patricia A. Orozco, Judge; Diane M. Johnsen; G. Murray Snow, Judge; lindsay ellis, Commissioner; Michael D. Hintze, Commissioner, Appellees, and Russell Brown, Trustee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-04-29
Citations: 377 F. App'x 711
Docket Number: No. 09-15652
Parties: John MACMULLIN, Appellant, v. William G. POACH, Jr.; Lynn M. Anderson; Donald Childers; Peter M. Williams; Marion Hubbard; Patricia A. Orozco, Judge; Diane M. Johnsen; G. Murray Snow, Judge; lindsay ellis, Commissioner; Michael D. Hintze, Commissioner, Appellees, and Russell Brown, Trustee.
Judges: Before: KLEINFELD, TASHIMA and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 377
Pages: 711–711

Head Matter:
John MACMULLIN, Appellant, v. William G. POACH, Jr.; Lynn M. Anderson; Donald Childers; Peter M. Williams; Marion Hubbard; Patricia A. Orozco, Judge; Diane M. Johnsen; G. Murray Snow, Judge; lindsay ellis, Commissioner; Michael D. Hintze, Commissioner, Appellees, and Russell Brown, Trustee.
No. 09-15652.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 13, 2010.
Filed April 29, 2010.
John MacMullin, Phoenix, AZ, pro se.
Lawrence D. Hirsch, Deconcini McDonald Yetwin & Lacy, PC, Robert R. Hall, Office of the Attorney General, Phoenix, AZ, for Appellees.
Russell Brown, Phoenix, AZ, pro se.
Before: KLEINFELD, TASHIMA and THOMAS, 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
John MacMullin appeals from the district court's affirmance of the bankruptcy court's order modifying the automatic stay to permit the probate of Sylvia Levering's Estate to continue and referring all questions relating to the merits of attorney's fees and costs awarded during probate proceedings to the probate court.
After reviewing the record and the briefs, we affirm for the reasons given by the district court in its decision. As explained in Marshall v. Marshall, 547 U.S. 293, 126 S.Ct. 1735, 164 L.Ed.2d 480 (2006), the probate exception to bankruptcy jurisdiction applies to claims against the res in the custody of the state court and to matters internal to the probate of the will.
We construe MacMullin's "motion re: record" as a request for judicial notice of records that were not before the bankruptcy court and deny.
AFFIRMED; MOTION DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.