Bushay v. McDonnell (In Re Bushay) , 187 F. App'x 17 ( 2006 )

Not For Publication in West's Federal Reporter
Citation Limited Pursuant to 1st Cir. Loc. R. 32.3
United States Court of Appeals
For the First Circuit
No. 05-9008
IN RE: PATRICIA BUSHAY,
Debtor,
_____________________
PATRICIA BUSHAY,
Plaintiff, Appellant,
v.
MARIE MCDONNELL,
Defendant, Appellee.
ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY
APPELLATE PANEL FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
Before
Torruella, Circuit Judge,
Stahl, Senior Circuit Judge,
and Lipez, Circuit Judge.
David G. Baker and Peter C. Lacy on brief for appellant.
Marie McDonnell on brief pro se.
July 5, 2006
Per Curiam. In this appeal from a final decision of the
Bankruptcy Appellate Panel ("BAP"), appellant Patricia Bushay, a
Chapter 13 debtor, seeks further review of the bankruptcy court's
dismissal of her adversary complaint for failure to comply with a
discovery order. We review the bankruptcy court's ruling for abuse
of discretion. See Bachier-Ortiz v. Colon-Mendoza, 331 F.3d 193,
194 (1st Cir. 2003). Essentially for the reasons stated by the BAP
in its thorough decision, see In re Bushay, 327 B.R. 695 (1st Cir.
B.A.P. 2005), we affirm. We add only that appellant's lack of
notice argument is based on an unreasonably narrow reading of the
order to show cause, and her contention that she lacked notice that
the court would consider her well-documented history of
noncompliance with discovery obligations over the course of the
proceedings in addition to her noncompliance with the specific
discovery order is belied by the transcript of the proceedings that
preceded the show cause order.
To the extent appellant challenges the bankruptcy court's
revision of the procedural basis for denying appellee's motion for
summary judgment following its initial dismissal of the complaint,
we see no error nor discernable harm to appellant.
Affirmed. See 1st Cir. Loc. R. 27(c).
-2-