Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-09-03099/USCOURTS-ca8-09-03099-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Mary M. Moriarty
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable William Jay Riley became Chief Judge of the United States

Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit on April 1, 2010.

2

The Honorable Donovan W. Frank, United States District Judge for the District

of Minnesota.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 09-3099

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Minnesota.

Mary M. Moriarty, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: March 24, 2010

Filed: April 6, 2010

___________

Before RILEY,1

 Chief Judge, BYE and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Mary Moriarty appeals the district court’s2

 adverse judgment in this action by

the United States to recover on her defaulted student loans, which were executed

pursuant to the Higher Education Act (HEA). The district court granted summary

judgment in favor of the government on its claims, and dismissed Moriarty’s

Appellate Case: 09-3099 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/06/2010 Entry ID: 3651802
-2-

counterclaims for lack of jurisdiction and noncompliance with the Federal Tort Claims

Act (FTCA).

As a preliminary matter, we grant the government’s motion to strike one of

Moriarty’s exhibits on appeal, because it was not part of the record in the district

court. See Huelsman v. Civic Ctr. Corp., 873 F.2d 1171, 1175 (8th Cir. 1989)

(appellate court can properly consider only record and facts before district court; only

papers and exhibits filed in district court can constitute record on appeal).

Turning to the merits, we hold that summary judgment was properly granted on

the government’s claims. See Hartnagel v. Norman, 953 F.2d 394, 395-96 (8th Cir.

1992) (when moving party has carried its burden under Rule 56(c), opponent must do

more than simply show there is some “metaphysical doubt” as to material facts; where

record as whole could not lead rational trier of fact to find for nonmoving party, there

is no genuine issue for trial); see also Ramlet v. E.F. Johnson Co., 507 F.3d 1149,

1152 (8th Cir. 2007) (de novo review of summary judgment decision).

We further hold that Moriarty’s counterclaims were properly dismissed. See

Labickas v. Ark. State Univ., 78 F.3d 333, 334 (8th Cir. 1996) (per curiam) (no

private cause of action for student borrowers under HEA); Bellecourt v. United States,

994 F.2d 427, 430 (8th Cir. 1993) (before filing FTCA action, claimant must present

administrative claim requesting sum certain in damages to appropriate federal agency

and that claim must be finally denied); see also Lemay v. U.S. Postal Serv., 450 F.3d

797, 799 (8th Cir. 2006) (de novo review of dismissal).

Accordingly, we grant the pending motion and affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 09-3099 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/06/2010 Entry ID: 3651802