In re: AYDIN T. ONER v. Federal National Mortgage Association;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
In re: AYDIN T. ONER,
Debtor.
______________________________
AYDIN T. ONER,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE
ASSOCIATION; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 15-15506
D.C. No. 2:14-cv-01604-JCM
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
James C. Mahan, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 14, 2016**
Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
FILED
DEC 21 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

-- 1 of 2 --

Aydin T. Oner appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing his
bankruptcy appeal for failure to file an opening brief. We have jurisdiction under
28 U.S.C. §§ 158(d), 1291. We review for abuse of discretion a district court’s
dismissal for failure to prosecute. Moneymaker v. CoBen (In re Eisen), 31 F.3d
1447, 1451 (9th Cir. 1994). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Oner’s appeal
after granting Oner two extensions of time to file an opening brief and warning that
a failure to comply may result in dismissal. The district court properly exercised
its discretion in determining that the delay prejudiced defendants and interfered
with the district court’s ability to manage its docket. See id. (“A reviewing court
will give deference to the district court to decide what is unreasonable because it is
in the best position to determine what period of delay can be endured before its
docket becomes unmanageable” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).
Because we affirm the district court’s dismissal for failure to prosecute, we
do not consider Oner’s challenges to the bankruptcy court’s decisions or the
district court’s interlocutory orders. See Morrissey v. Stuteville (In re Morrissey),
349 F.3d 1187, 1190 (9th Cir. 2003); Al-Torki v. Kaempen, 78 F.3d 1381, 1386
(9th Cir. 1996).
AFFIRMED.
15-15506 2

-- 2 of 2 --