US v. Nancy Rush

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:10-cv-00006-IMK. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998744544].. [11-1344]

Appeal: 11-1344

Document: 18

Date Filed: 12/15/2011

Page: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-1344

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
NANCY A. RUSH,
Defendant – Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg.
Irene M. Keeley,
District Judge. (1:10-cv-00006-IMK)

Submitted:

November 23, 2011

Decided:

December 15, 2011

Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Gregory H. Schillace, SCHILLACE LAW OFFICE, Clarksburg, West
Virginia, for Appellant.
William J. Ihlenfeld, II, United
States Attorney, Alan G. McGonigal, Assistant United States
Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 11-1344

Document: 18

Date Filed: 12/15/2011

Page: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Nancy A. Rush appeals from the district court’s order
awarding summary judgment to the United States in its action to
See United States

collect on student loans that Rush executed.
v.

Rush,

No.

1:10-cv-00006-IMK

(N.D.

W.

Va.

Mar.

22,

2011).

Rush contends that issues of material fact remain such that a
reasonable

jury

could

conclude

that

she

repaid

the

loans.

Specifically, while she does not recall receiving documentation
that she had satisfied the loan obligations, she “assum[es]” and
“guess[es]”
default.

that
She

she

also

repaid
contends

the

loans

that

a

prior

former

to

the

employee

alleged
of

the

originating bank attested that she had never been in default
during his employment; that the originating bank approved other
loans to her, which would not have occurred had she defaulted;
and that the guaranty agency’s cessation of garnishment efforts
evidences her repayment of the loans.
Rush’s

contentions

are

not

persuasive.

The

United

States has submitted documents certified by the United States
Department of Education and other evidence showing her default.
In

the

face

of

these

records,

Rush’s

unsubstantiated

and

equivocal assertion that she repaid the loans does not create an
issue of material fact.

See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.,

477 U.S. 242, 248-49 (1986).

The former employee’s statement

does not justify reversal because he left the bank before the
2

Appeal: 11-1344

Document: 18

Date Filed: 12/15/2011

Page: 3 of 3

default and would not know whether Rush defaulted.

So too with

respect to Rush’s other loans, as the record indicates that they
were

executed

before

the

default.

Finally,

the

guaranty

agency’s cessation of garnishment efforts does not create an
issue

of

material

fact.

Undisputed

evidence

shows

that

the

agency ceased collection activities not because Rush had repaid
the loans, but because it assigned the loans to the Department
of Education.

Subsequently, the Department undertook its own

collection efforts.
Accordingly,

we

affirm.

We

dispense

with

oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
presented in the materials before the court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED

3