Johnston

MEMORANDUM **

Nancy Johnston appeals pro se the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel’s (“BAP”) order affirming the bankruptcy court’s order dismissing her 11 U.S.C. § 523 (a)(4) claim and granting summary judgment in favor of Johnston’s brother and sister-in-law on her claims under 11 U.S.C. § 727 (a)(4) and (a)(7). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158 (d). We review de novo deci *288 sions of the BAP, and we review the bankruptcy court’s conclusions of law de novo and its findings of fact for clear error. Hanf v. Summers (In re Summers), 332 F.3d 1240, 1242 (9th Cir.2003). We affirm.

The BAP properly affirmed the bankruptcy court’s dismissal of Johnston’s 11 U.S.C. § 523 (a)(4) claim because Johnston did not challenge the discharge of a debt “for fraud or defalcation while [Debtors were] acting in a fiduciary capacity.” 11 U.S.C. § 523 (a)(4); see also Cal-Micro, Inc. v. Cantrell (In re Cantrell), 329 F.3d 1119, 1127 (9th Cir.2003) (holding that corporate officers are not trustees with respect to corporate assets and are therefore, not fiduciaries within the meaning of Section 523(a)(4)).

We agree with the BAP that the bankruptcy court properly granted summary judgment as to…