Case ID: f-appx_453/html/0727-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Todd D. GASTALDO, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 10-35385.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Sept. 27, 2011.
    
    Filed Oct. 12, 2011.
    Robert David Nesler, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Portland, OR, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Todd D. Gastaldo, Hillsboro, OR, pro se.
    Before: SILVERMAN, W. FLETCHER, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Todd D. Gastaldo appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment for the United States in its civil action to collect amounts due on three defaulted, federally-insured student loans. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. United States v. Phillips, 20 F.3d 1005, 1006-07 (9th Cir.1994) (per curiam). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment for the United States because Gastaldo failed to demonstrate a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether he owed the alleged amounts to the government. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 324, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986); see also 20 U.S.C. § 1091a(a)(2) (the United States may at any time bring an action for the repayment of the amount due from a borrower on a loan made under Title IV of the Higher Education Act that has been assigned to the Secretary of Education).

Gastaldo’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.