Case Name: IN RE: Booker Theodore WADE, Jr., Debtor. Booker Theodore Wade, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. Arlene Stevens, Respondent-Appellee, and Fred Hjelmeset; Office of the US Trustee/SJ, Trustees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-12-21
Citations: 671 F. App'x 680
Docket Number: No. 15-16922
Parties: IN RE: Booker Theodore WADE, Jr., Debtor. Booker Theodore Wade, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. Arlene Stevens, Respondent-Appellee, and Fred Hjelmeset; Office of the US Trustee/SJ, Trustees.
Judges: Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 671
Pages: 680–681

Head Matter:
IN RE: Booker Theodore WADE, Jr., Debtor. Booker Theodore Wade, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. Arlene Stevens, Respondent-Appellee, and Fred Hjelmeset; Office of the US Trustee/SJ, Trustees.
No. 15-16922
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted December 14, 2016
Filed December 21, 2016
Booker Theodore Wade, Jr., Pro Se
David Hamerslough, Attorney, Rossi, Hamerslough, Reischl & Chuck, San Jose, CA, for Respondent-Appellee
John S. Wesolowski, Esquire, Office of the U.S. Trustee, San Jose, CA, for Trustee
Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and FISHER, 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
Booker Theodore Wade, Jr., appeals pro se from the district court's order dismissing Wade's bankruptcy appeal for failure to prosecute after Wade failed to file his opening brief. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d), 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion a district court's dismissal for failure to prosecute. Moneymaker v. CoBen (In re Eisen), 31 F.3d 1447, 1451 (9th Cir. 1994). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Wade's bankruptcy appeal after determining that the delay caused by Wade's failure to file an opening brief was unreasonable and interfered with the district court's ability to manage its docket. See id, ("A reviewing court will give deference to the district court to decide what is unreasonable because it is in the best position to determine what period of delay can be endured before its docket becomes unmanageable" (citations omitted)).
We reject as without merit Wade's contentions that the district court exhibited bias in dismissing his appeal for failure prosecute.
AFFIRMED.
⅞⅛ disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.