Case Name: In the Matter of: Hunsdon Cary STEWART, Debtor. Hunsdon Cary Stewart, Appellant, v. Roya Batmanghelich, Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-04-01
Citations: 373 F. App'x 682
Docket Number: No. 08-60012
Parties: In the Matter of: Hunsdon Cary STEWART, Debtor. Hunsdon Cary Stewart, Appellant, v. Roya Batmanghelich, Appellee.
Judges: Before: SCHROEDER, PREGERSON, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 373
Pages: 682–683

Head Matter:
In the Matter of: Hunsdon Cary STEWART, Debtor. Hunsdon Cary Stewart, Appellant, v. Roya Batmanghelich, Appellee.
No. 08-60012.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 16, 2010.
Filed April 1, 2010.
In the Matter of Hunsdon Cary Stewart, Lompoc, CA, pro se.
Hunsdon Cary Stewart, pro se.
Keith A. Bregman, Esquire, Law Offices of Keith A. Bregman, N. Hollywood, CA, for Appellee.
Before: SCHROEDER, PREGERSON, and RAWLINSON, 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 13 debtor Hunsdon Cary Stewart appeals pro se from the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel's ("BAP") order affirming the bankruptcy court's decision denying Stewart's objection to a proof of claim filed by his former wile, Roya Batmanghelich. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We review independently the bankruptcy court's rulings on appeal from the BAP. Diamant v. Rasparian (In re S. Cal. Plastics, Inc.), 165 F.3cl 1243, 1245 (9th Cir.1999). We affirm.
The bankruptcy court did not err when it denied Stewart's objections to Bat-manghelich's proof of claim because Stewart failed to come forward with evidence that rebutted the proof of claim's prima facie validity. See id. at 1248 (stating that "debtor must come forward with evidence to rebut the presumption of validity" of a proof of claim).
Stewart's remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.