
    In re Fred George LABANKOFF, Debtor. Fred George Labankoff; et al., Appellants, v. General Motors Acceptance Corporation; et al., Appellees.
    No. 10-60038.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 17, 2012.
    
    Filed April 23, 2012.
    Fred George Labankoff, Santa Rosa, CA, pro se.
    Swetlana Labankoff, Santa Rosa, CA, pro se.
    Ludmila Shpitj, Santa Rosa, CA, pro se.
    Shpitj Labankoff General Trust, Santa Rosa, CA, pro se.
    Donald H. Cram, III, Esquire, Severson & Werson, Patricia A. Cutler, Esquire, Office of the U.S. Trustee, San Francisco, CA, for Appellees.
    Investors Trust Mortgage Corp., Santa Rosa, CA, pro se.
    David Izzett, Santa Rosa, CA, pro se.
    Before: LEAVY, PAEZ, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Fred George Labankoff, Swetlana La-bankoff, Ludmila Shpitj, and Shpitj Laban-koff General Trust (“appellants”) appeal pro se from the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel’s (“BAP”) order affirming the bankruptcy court’s order abstaining from deciding an adversary proceeding against appel-lees and dismissing appellants’ adversary proceeding without prejudice. We dismiss.

We lack jurisdiction to review the bankruptcy court’s decision to abstain pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1334(c)(1). See 28 U.S.C. § 1334(d).

We also lack jurisdiction to review the denial of appellants’ motion to recuse the bankruptcy judge. 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).

Appellants’ request for judicial notice and motion to strike appellees’ opening brief are denied.

DISMISSED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.
     