
    IN RE: Minon MILLER, Debtor. Minon Miller, Appellant, v. Edward Gilliam, Appellee.
    No. 16-60087
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted December 18, 2017 
    
    Filed December 26, 2017
    Minon Miller, Pro Se
    Edward Gilliam, Pro Se
    Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes, this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Chapter 7 debtor Minon Miller appeals pro se from the judgment of the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (“BAP”) affirming the bankruptcy court’s order dismissing Miller’s bankruptcy case, We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.'C. § 158(d). We review de novo BAP decisions, and apply the same standard of review that the BAP applied to the bankruptcy court’s ruling, Boyajian v. New Falls Corp. (In re Boyajian), 564 F.3d 1088, 1090 (9th Cir. 2009), We affirm.

The bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Miller’s chapter 7 petition because the record supports the bankruptcy court’s extensive findings of abuse and bad faith. See 11 U.S.C. §§ 707(b)(1), (b)(3)(A); Price v. U.S. Trustee (In re Price), 353 F.3d 1135, 1138 (9th Cir. 2004) (reviewing for clear error a bankruptcy court’s factual findings and for an abuse of discretion its decision to dismiss a chapter 7 bankruptcy petition).

To the extent Miller argues that the bankruptcy court violated due process by considering any of Gilliam’s motions, we reject the contention because the record shows that the bankruptcy court provided Miller with adequate opportunity to respond and be heard.

We reject as without merit Miller’s contentions that the bankruptcy judge should have recused himself.

We do not consider arguments raised for the first time on appeal or matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

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