
    IN RE: Anthony VANDERPLOEG, Debtor. Jacques Powers, Appellant, v. Anthony Vanderploeg, Appellee.
    No. 15-55939
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted February 13, 2018 
    
    Filed February 23, 2018
    Jacques Powers, Pro Se
    Anthony Vanderploeg, Pro Se
    Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2),
    
   MEMORANDUM

Jacques Powers appeals pro se from the district court’s order affirming the bankruptcy court’s order denying Powers’s motion to reopen his dismissed adversary proceeding. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We review de novo the decision of the bankruptcy court without deference to the district court’s decision. In re AFI Holding, Inc., 525 F.3d 700, 702 (9th Cir. 2008). We affirm.

The bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion by denying Powers’s motion to vacate its order dismissing the adversary proceeding because Powers failed to identify any grounds for relief. See Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9024 (making Fed. R. Civ. P. 60 applicable to bankruptcy cases); Casey v. Albertson’s Inc., 362 F.3d 1254, 1257 (9th Cir. 2004) (setting forth standard of review).

Because Powers’s notice of appeal in the bankruptcy court was not timely as to the bankruptcy court’s order dismissing the adversary proceeding, we do not consider Powers’s challenges to that order. See Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8002(b) (Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion tolls appeal period only if filed within 14 days of judgment, order or decree); Anderson v. Mouradick (In re Mouradick), 13 F.3d 326, 327 (9th Cir. 1994) (provisions of Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8002 are jurisdictional); see also Delaney v. Alexander (In re Delaney ), 29 F.3d 516, 518 (9th Cir. 1994) (parties have an affirmative duty to monitor the docket). We also do not consider Powers’s arguments related to the merits of his underlying claims.

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