
    In the Matter of JOURNAL REGISTER COMPANY Journal Register Company, Debtor. James D. Schneller, Appellant, v. Journal Register Company, Appellee, Pulp Finish 1 Company, fka Journal Register Company, Consolidated-Appellee.
    No. 14-2280.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    Oct. 15, 2015.
    James D. Schneller, pro se, Norristown, PA, for Appellant.
    
      Shaunna Dionne Jones, Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP, New York, NY, for Appel-lee.
    Matthew B. Lunn, Michael R. Nestor, Kenneth J. Enos, Young Conaway Star-gatt & Taylor, LLP, New York, NY, for Consolidated-Appellee.
    PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS, RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., Circuit Judges, and GEOFFREY W. CRAWFORD, District Judge.
    
      
       The Honorable Geoffrey W. Crawford, of the United States District Court for the District of Vermont, sitting by designation.
    
   SUMMARY ORDER

21 Appellant James D. Schneller, pro se, appeals from the judgment of the district court (Castel, J.), affirming four orders of two bankruptcy courts (Bernstein, B.J.; Gropper, B.J.). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.

“The rulings of a district court acting as an appellate court in a bankruptcy case are subject to plenary review.” In re Stoltz, 315 F.3d 80, 87 (2d Cir.2002). We “review the bankruptcy court decision independently, accepting its factual findings unless clearly erroneous but reviewing its conclusions of law de novo.” In re Enron Corp., 419 F.3d 115, 124 (2d Cir.2005). Several of the bankruptcy court orders Schneller challenges are reviewed for abuse of discretion. See In re Coudert Bros. LLP, 673 F.3d 180, 186 (2d Cir.2012) (motion for reconsideration); In re Smith, 645 F.3d 186, 189 (2d Cir.2011) (motion to reopen); E. Equip. & Servs. Corp. v. Factory Point Nat’l Bank, Bennington, 236 F.3d 117, 120 (2d Cir.2001) (motion for sanctions).

An independent review of the re,cord and relevant case law reveals that the district court properly affirmed the orders denying Schneller’s motions to reopen, to reconsider, and for sanctions, and the order expunging Schneller’s claim. We affirm for substantially the reasons stated by the district court in its thorough May 22, 2014, memorandum and order.

With respect to Schneller’s challenge of the district court’s order denying him leave to appeal in forma pauperis, we DISMISS his challenge as moot. We have considered all of Schneller’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.  