Anoruo v. Wilmington Savings Fund Society, Fsb

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 22 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JOSEPH ANORUO, No. 24-956 D.C. No. 2:23-cv-01940-RFB Appellant, v. MEMORANDUM* WILMINGTON SAVINGS FUND SOCIETY, FSB; BARRET DAFFIN FRAPPIER; UNITED STATES TRUSTEE, Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada Richard F. Boulware, II, District Judge, Presiding Submitted July 15, 2025** Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges. Chapter 7 debtor Joseph Anoruo appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing as duplicative his appeal from the bankruptcy court’s order dismissing his adversary proceeding. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). § 158(d)(1). We review for an abuse of discretion. Adams v. Cal. Dep’t of Health Servs., 487 F.3d 684, 688 (9th Cir. 2007), abrogated in part on other grounds by Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880 (2008). We affirm. The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Anoruo’s appeal as duplicative. See Anoruo v. Wilmington Sav. Fund Soc’y, FSB, No. 23-cv-00937 (D. Nev. Nov. 16, 2023); see also Adams, 487 F.3d at 688-89 (setting forth test for determining whether an action is duplicative). Anoruo’s allegations of bias and collusion by the bankruptcy court are unsupported by the record. 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). AFFIRMED. 2 24-956