In the Matter of: LESLIE P. MARKS v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC

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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
In the Matter of: LESLIE P. MARKS,
Debtor.
LESLIE P. MARKS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 10-16799
D.C. No. 3:10-cv-00203-WHA
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
William H. Alsup, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 25, 2011**
Before: TROTT, GOULD, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Leslie P. Marks appeals pro se from the district court’s order concerning
various orders of the bankruptcy court in her adversary proceeding. We have
FILED
NOV 02 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

10-16799 2
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §158(d). We review decisions of the bankruptcy court
independently without deference to the district court’s determinations. Leichty v.
Neary (In re Strand), 375 F.3d 854, 857 (9th Cir. 2004). We affirm.
The bankruptcy court properly denied Marks’s motion alleging a violation of
the automatic stay. See McCarthy, Johnson & Miller v. North Bay Plumbing, Inc.
(In re Pettit), 217 F.3d 1072, 1080-81 (9th Cir. 2000) (no violation of the
automatic stay where transferred property was not property of the estate).
The district court properly concluded that Marks’s notice of appeal was
untimely as to the other bankruptcy court orders that Marks challenged on appeal.
See Greene v. United States (In re Souza), 795 F.2d 855, 857 (9th Cir. 1986) (the
notice of appeal from a bankruptcy court decision must be filed within the time
provided by Bankruptcy Rule 8002).
Marks’s contention that the district court and bankruptcy court judges were
biased is unsupported by the record. See Focus Media, Inc. v. NBC (In re Focus
Media, Inc.), 378 F.3d 916, 929-30 (9th Cir. 2004) (judicial rulings alone rarely
evidence bias).
Marks’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
Marks’s request for judicial notice is denied.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --