IN RE: William Robert NORRIE (2019)

MEMORANDUM **

Chapter 7 debtor William Robert Norrie appeals pro se from the district court's order dismissing his bankruptcy appeal for failure to comply with court orders and failure to prosecute. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 158(d) and 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 2002). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Norrie's appeal after Norrie failed to file the documents required by Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 8009, despite the district court's warning that noncompliance may result in dismissal. See id. at 640-43 (discussing factors to be considered before dismissing a case for failure to comply with a court order; a district court's dismissal should not be disturbed absent “a definite and firm conviction” that it “committed a clear error or judgment” (citations and internal quotation marks omitted)); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1261 (9th Cir. 1992) (this court may review the record independently if the district court does not make explicit findings to show its consideration of the factors).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Norrie's motion for reconsideration because Norrie failed to demonstrate any basis for relief. See Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9023, 9024 (making Fed. R. Civ. P. 59 and 60 applicable to bankruptcy cases); Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cty, Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993) (setting forth standard of review and grounds for relief under Rule 59 or 60).

Norrie's request for judicial notice, included at Docket Entry No. 6, is denied as unnecessary.

AFFIRMED.