SUMMARY ORDER

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

Appellant George S. Wynns, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court's judgment affirming in part and vacating in part an order of the Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of New York's finding, inter alia, that Wynns had violated sections 110 and 528 of the Bankruptcy Code, see 11 U.S.C. §§ 110, 528. We assume the parties' familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.

"The rulings of a district court acting as an appellate court in a bankruptcy case are subject to plenary review." In re Stoltz, 315 F.3d 80, 87 (2d Cir. 2002). Consequently, "[i]n an appeal from a district court's review of a bankruptcy court decision, we review the bankruptcy court decision independently, accepting its factual findings unless clearly erroneous but reviewing its conclusions of law de novo." In re Enron Corp., 419 F.3d 115, 124 (2d Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks omitted).

At the start, we conclude that Wynn has waived any objection to personal jurisdiction for failure to raise this objection in his initial responsive pleadings. See Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7012; City of N.Y. v. Mickalis Pawn Shop, LLC, No. 08-4804-cv, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 9104, at *50 (2d Cir. May 4, 2011) (slip op.). Having conducted an independent and de novo review of the record, we affirm the district court's judgment for substantially the same reasons stated by the district court in its thorough and well-reasoned decision. We have considered Wynns's other arguments on appeal and conclude that they are waived or lack merit. In addition, we decline to consider the United States Trustee's argument that this Court should affirm based on the bankruptcy court's interpretation of section 110 because the United States Trustee did not file a cross-appeal from the district court's order. See Burgo v. Gen. Dynamics Corp., 122 F.3d 140, 145 (2d Cir. 1997) ("[A]bsent a cross-appeal," a party may not "attack the decree with a view either to enlarging his own rights thereunder or of lessening the rights of his adversary, whether what he seeks is to correct an error or to supplement the decree with respect to a matter not dealt with below." (internal quotation marks omitted)).

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is hereby AFFIRMED.