
    IN RE: Madeline Yvette DAVIS, Debtor. Madeline Yvette Davis, Appellant, v. Bank of America, N.A., Appellee.
    No. 17-60058
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted January 16, 2018 
    
    Filed January 19, 2018
    Madeline Yvette Davis, Pro Se
    Leslie M. Werlin, Esquire, McGuire-Woods LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Appel-lee
    Before: REINHARDT, TROTT, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously condudes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Chapter 7 debtor Madeline Yvette Davis appeals pro se from the judgment of the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (“BAP”) affirming the bankruptcy court’s order dismissing Davis’s adversary proceeding. 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 properly dismissed Davis’s adversary proceeding because Davis lacks standing to pursue claims that are property of the bankruptcy estate. See 11 U.S.C. § 323; Moneymaker v. CoBen (In re Eisen), 31 F.3d 1447, 1451 n.2 (9th Cir. 1994) (Chapter 7 trustee is the-representative of the debtor’s estate, and therefore the only party with standing to administer estate assets); Canatella v. Towers (In re Alcala), 918 F.2d 99, 102 (9th Cir. 1990) (causes of action which accrued before a Chapter 7 petition is filed are part of the estate vested in the trustee).

To the extent Davis seeks to appeal the order granting relief from the automatic stay, we lack jurisdiction to review it. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A); Stephanie-Cardona LLC v. Smith’s Food & Drug Ctrs., Inc., 476 F.3d 701, 703 (9th Cir. 2007) (“A timely notice of appeal is a non-waivable jurisdictional requirement.”).

The parties’ motions to take judicial notice (Docket Entry Nos. 9, 13) are denied.

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