FILED

NOT FOR PUBLICATION NOV 02 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

In the Matter of: LESLIE P. MARKS, No. 10-16799

Debtor. D.C. No. 3:10-cv-00203-WHA

LESLIE P. MARKS, MEMORANDUM *

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California William H. Alsup, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted October 25, 2011 **

Before: TROTT, GOULD, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

Leslie P. Marks appeals pro se from the district court’s order concerning

various orders of the bankruptcy court in her adversary proceeding. We have

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §158(d). We review decisions of the bankruptcy court

independently without deference to the district court’s determinations. Leichty v.

Neary (In re Strand), 375 F.3d 854, 857 (9th Cir. 2004). We affirm.

The bankruptcy court properly denied Marks’s motion alleging a violation of

the automatic stay. See McCarthy, Johnson & Miller v. North Bay Plumbing, Inc.

(In re Pettit), 217 F.3d 1072, 1080-81 (9th Cir. 2000) (no violation of the

automatic stay where transferred property was not property of the estate).

The district court properly concluded that Marks’s notice of appeal was

untimely as to the other bankruptcy court orders that Marks challenged on appeal.

See Greene v. United States (In re Souza), 795 F.2d 855, 857 (9th Cir. 1986) (the

notice of appeal from a bankruptcy court decision must be filed within the time

provided by Bankruptcy Rule 8002).

Marks’s contention that the district court and bankruptcy court judges were

biased is unsupported by the record. See Focus Media, Inc. v. NBC (In re Focus

Media, Inc.), 378 F.3d 916, 929-30 (9th Cir. 2004) (judicial rulings alone rarely

evidence bias).

Marks’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

Marks’s request for judicial notice is denied.

AFFIRMED.

2 10-16799