Muhammad v. North Richmond Senior Housing, Inc.

671 F. App'x 687
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedDecember 21, 2016
Docket15-60036
StatusUnpublished

This text of 671 F. App'x 687 (Muhammad v. North Richmond Senior Housing, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Muhammad v. North Richmond Senior Housing, Inc., 671 F. App'x 687 (9th Cir. 2016).

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

James Karim Muhammad appeals pro se from an order of the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (“BAP”) dismissing his bankruptcy appeal as untimely. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We review de novo. Delaney v. Alexander (In re Delaney), 29 F.3d 516, 517 (9th Cir. 1994). We affirm.

The BAP correctly dismissed Muhammad’s appeal because Muhammad failed to file the notice of appeal with the bankruptcy clerk within 14 days of entry of the order being appealed as required by Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8002(a)(1). See 11 U.S.C. § 158(c)(2) (an appeal to the BAP or district court from a bankruptcy court must be taken within the time provided by Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8002); Anderson v. Mouradick (In re Mouradick), 13 F.3d 326, 327 (9th Cir. 1994) (“The provisions of Bankruptcy Rule 8002 are jurisdictional. ”); see also Ramsey v. Ramsey (In re Ramsey), 612 F.2d 1220, 1223 (9th Cir. 1980) (declining to adopt a “mailbox rule” for Rule 8002(a) appeals).

Muhammad’s pending motions are denied as moot.

AFFIRMED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
671 F. App'x 687, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/muhammad-v-north-richmond-senior-housing-inc-ca9-2016.