
    IN RE: Larry TEVIS; Nancy Tevis, Debtors. Larry Tevis; Nancy Tevis, Appellants, v. California Department of Veterans Affairs; Jan P. Johnson, Chapter 13 Trustee, Appellees.
    No. 16-60063
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted November 15, 2017 
    
    Filed November 21, 2017
    Larry Tevis, Pro Se
    Nancy Tevis, Pro Se
    Vasilios Stylianos Spyridakis, California Department of Veterans Affairs, Sacramento, CA, for Appellee California Department of Veterans Affairs
    Jan P. Johnson, Pro Se
    Before: CANBY, TROTT, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Larry Tevis and Nancy Tevis appeal pro se from a judgment of the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (“BAP”) affirming the bankruptcy court’s judgment dismissing their adversary proceeding for failure to prosecute. 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 did not abuse its discretion by dismissing appellants’ adversary proceeding because the bankruptcy court properly applied the factors for determining whether to dismiss a case for failure to prosecute, and its findings are supported by the record. See Moneymaker v. CoBen (In re Eisen), 31 F.3d 1447, 1451 (9th Cir. 1994) (setting forth standard of review and five factors considered when determining whether to dismiss a bankruptcy proceeding for failure to prosecute).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

We reject as without merit appellants’ contention that the BAP violated due process.

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