Alana Wagner v. Bank of America, Na

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 9 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ALANA D. WAGNER, No. 12-15430
Appellant, D.C. No. 3:10-cv-00728-RCJ-VPC
v.
MEMORANDUM*
BANK OF AMERICA, NA,
Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Robert C. Jones, Chief Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 24, 2013**
Before: RAWLINSON, N.R. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Alana D. Wagner appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing
for failure to prosecute her appeal of the bankruptcy court’s order granting relief
from the stay in her Chapter 13 bankruptcy proceedings. We have jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We review for an abuse of discretion. Morrissey v.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Stuteville (In re Morrissey), 349 F.3d 1187, 1190 (9th Cir. 2003). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Wagner’s appeal
because Wagner failed to file a timely designation of record, statement of issues,
and notice regarding transcripts, make a timely payment for transcripts, or file an
opening brief when her appeal had been pending for over 11 months. See Fed. R.
Bankr. P. 8001(a) (an appellant’s failure to take steps required to prosecute a
bankruptcy appeal may be grounds for dismissal of the appeal); In re Morrissey,
349 F.3d at 1190-91 (dismissal for noncompliance with procedural rules is proper,
without explicit consideration of alternative sanctions, where procedural
deficiencies are numerous and egregious); Fitzsimmons v. Nolden (In re
Fitzsimmons), 920 F.2d 1468, 1472 (9th Cir. 1990) (affirming dismissal for failure
to prosecute where appellant did not timely serve the designation of record, failed
to take prompt steps to have reporter’s transcripts prepared, and failed to post the
necessary fees or contact the reporter until after the motion to dismiss was filed).
Wagner’s contentions that the district court violated her due process rights
by failing to issue a scheduling order and that defendant is precluded from seeking
dismissal for failure to prosecute because of an alleged “fraud on the court” are
unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.
2 12-15430