
    In re: June E. WILLEMS, Debtor, June E. Willems, Appellant, v. Ralph E. Seefeldt, Chapter 7 Trustee, Appellee.
    No. 10-15489.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 15, 2011.
    
    Filed March 8, 2011.
    June E. Willems, Tucson, AZ, pro se.
    Michael M. Neal, Esquire, Law Office of Michael M. Neal, P.C., Tucson, AZ, for Appellee.
    Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

June E. Willems appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment affirming the bankruptcy court’s summary judgment vacating its discharge of her bankruptcy proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We review de novo. Zurich Am. Ins. Co. v. Int’l Fibercom, Inc. (In re Int’l Fibercom, Inc.), 503 F.3d 933, 939 (9th Cir.2007). We affirm.

Contrary to Willems’s contentions, the bankruptcy court properly concluded that it had jurisdiction to hear her bankruptcy case. See 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(1) (“Bankruptcy judges may hear and determine all cases under title 11”); D. Ariz. Gen. Order 01-15 (“Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(a), the court hereby refers to the bankruptcy judges for this district all cases under title 11 and all proceedings under title 11.... ”).

Willems’s contentions that she was denied due process by the bankruptcy and district courts are not supported by the record. See SEC v. McCarthy, 322 F.3d 650, 659 (9th Cir.2003) (due process requires notice and an opportunity to be heard).

Willems’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

Willems’s pending motions are denied.

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