Conville v. Department of Education

Eighth Circuit

Conville v. Department of Education

513 F. App'x 636

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedJuly 12, 2013

Docket12-2636

StatusUnpublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 513 F. App'x 636 (Conville v. Department of Education) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Conville v. Department of Education, 513 F. App'x 636 (8th Cir. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Michael Conville filed a complaint for judicial review of an administrative decision of the Department of Education (DOE) denying discharge of his federally guaranteed student loans. Both parties moved for summary judgment. Determining there was no evidence that the DOE’s decision was unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious, the district court 1 denied Con-ville’s motion, granted the DOE’s, and dismissed the complaint. Conville appeals.

For the reasons the district court stated, we conclude that the DOE was entitled to summary judgment. See South Dakota v. Dep’t of Interior, 487 F.3d 548, 551 (8th Cir.2007) (standard of review). The existence of the student loan debts was undisputed. Notwithstanding Conville’s arguments, the DOE reasonably decided that his debts were enforceable and that there was no basis for their discharge. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

1

. The Honorable Robert T. Dawson, United States District Judge for the Western District of Arkansas.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Michael Conville filed a complaint for judicial review of an administrative decision of the Department of Education (DOE) denying discharge of his federally guaranteed student loans. Both parties moved for summary judgment. Determining there was no evidence that the DOE’s decision was unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious, the district court 1 denied Con-ville’s motion, granted the DOE’s, and dismissed the complaint. Conville appeals.

For the reasons the district court stated, we conclude that the DOE was entitled to summary judgment. See South Dakota v. Dep’t of Interior, 487 F.3d 548, 551 (8th Cir.2007) (standard of review). The existence of the student loan debts was undisputed. Notwithstanding Conville’s arguments, the DOE reasonably decided that his debts were enforceable and that there was no basis for their discharge. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

1

. The Honorable Robert T. Dawson, United States District Judge for the Western District of Arkansas.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

513 F. App'x 636, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/conville-v-department-of-education-ca8-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack