Michael Conville v. EDUC


PER CURIAM OPINION FILED - THE COURT: Kermit E. Bye, Morris S. Arnold and Bobby E. Shepherd (UNPUBLISHED) [4054125] [12-2636]

Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 12-2636 ___________________________ Michael J. Conville lllllllllllllllllllll Appellant v. Department of Education, U.S. Secretary Arne Ducan lllllllllllllllllllll Appellee ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas - Ft. Smith ____________ Submitted: February 6, 2013 Filed: July 12, 2013 [Unpublished] ____________ Before BYE, ARNOLD, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. ____________ 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 Appellate Case: 12-2636 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/12/2013 Entry ID: 4054125 capricious, the district court1 denied Conville’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. -2- Appellate Case: 12-2636 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/12/2013 Entry ID: 4054125

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?