* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, e xcept under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and col lateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judg ments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and condi tions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

## F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### APR 21 2003 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

KEVIN P. CHRISTOPHER,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant-Appellee. No. 01-5183 (D.C. No. 00-CV-34-C) (N.D. Okla.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before HENRY , and HOLLOWAY , Circuit Judges, and BRORBY , Senior Circuit Judge.

After examining the briefs and appellate record, th is panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materiallyassist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). T he case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.-2-

Plaintiff Kevin P. Christopher, proceeding pro se, appeals from an order of the district court granting the United States’ moti on for summary judgment in this action brought pursuant to Title IV of the Higher E ducation Act of 1965,
20 U.S.C. §§ 1070-1099c. We affirm. Mr. Christopher was a student at the NEC Spartan Sc hool of Aeronautics (Spartan) in 1987, and again from 1989 until 1992. He received student loans under the Federal Family Education Loan Program (Pr ogram) as authorized by Title IV. After Mr. Christopher withdrew from Spartan, he sent a letter to the Department of Education (DOE) asserting that Spartan had improperly handled his student loans. The DOE determined that Spartan had not complied with Program regulations when it certified Mr. Chri stopher as eligible for Program funds because he was a part-time student an d, thus, ineligible. As a consequence, Spartan became liable to the lending i nstitutions for the costs of the loans and assumed the obligation to collect the loa ns, totaling over $21,000.00 from Mr. Christopher. Mr. Christopher did not repay the loans and continued to contest the DOE’s determination. In 2000, Mr. Christopher filed suit against Spartanand the United States. He alleged Spartan had violated the Racketeer Influ enced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1962, 1964(c). He sought to enjoin the DOE from implementing and enforcing the provision of Ti tle IV and alleged the DOE-3-

had violated his constitutional rights to due proce ss and equal protection, thus the loans he received were illegal and unenforceable. He also sought to have Title IV declared unconstitutional. Mr. Christopher’s claim against Spartan was dismiss ed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a cla im. The district court entered final judgment in favor of Spartan pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b). Mr. Christopher appealed and this court affirmed. See Christopher v. United
States , No. 00-5256, 2001 WL 1134980, at **1 (10th Cir. S ept. 26, 2001). After this court’s affirmance issued, the district court granted summary judgment to the United States setting forth six rea sons. The court held that Mr. Christopher lacked standing to bring this actio n because only Spartan was affected by the Department’s determination against Spartan; Title IV does not provide for a private right of action; Mr. Christop her was estopped from challenging Spartan’s eligibility certification bec ause he had made eligibility misrepresentations on his applications; he was not challenging the constitutionality of Title IV, but rather the way i n which it was administered; and his claims were barred by the anti-injunction p rovision of Title IV. The court also held that his recently added claims agai nst the United States Treasury were conclusory and lacking any factual basis.-4-

On appeal, Mr. Christopher raises several issues ag ainst Spartan. These issues will not be addressed because Spartan is nota party to this appeal as all issues against it were settled in Mr. Christopher’s prior appeal. Mr. Christopher also argues that Title IV prohibits repayment of his student loans, the government had no authority to advise Spartan about collecting his loans, and defendant changed its interpretation of the regulations retro actively. “We review the district court’s grant of summary ju dgment de novo, applying the same legal standard used by the distri ct court” under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). Simms v. Okla. ex rel. Dep’t of Mental Health & Substance Abuse Servs. , 165 F.3d 1321, 1326 (10th Cir. 1999). Summary judg ment is proper if the moving party shows “there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). An issue of fact is “genuine” if there is sufficient e vidence so that a rational trier of fact could find for the non-movant. Simms , 165 F.3d at 1326. “An issue of fact is ‘material’ if, under the substantive law, it is essential to the proper disposition of the claim.” Adler v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. , 144 F.3d 664, 670 (10th Cir. 1998). We examine the factual record and reasonabl e inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to the party opposing summary judgment. Kaul v. Stephan , 83 F.3d 1208, 1212 (10th Cir. 1996).-5-

Mr. Christopher does not address the threshold issu e of whether a private right of action exists under Title IV. This court has noted that “[w]here a statute provides an administrative enforcement mechanism, t he presumption is that no private cause of action is intended.” L’ggrke v. Benkula , 966 F.2d 1346, 1348 (10th Cir. 1992). After examining the statute, the court observed that “Title IV gives extensive enforcement authority to the Secret ary” and concluded that “no private cause of action exists” under Title IV. Id. As no private cause of action exists, Mr. Christopher cannot proceed with this ac tion. The judgment of the United States District Court fo r the Northern District of Oklahoma is AFFIRMED.

Entered for the Court

William J. Holloway, Jr. Circuit Judge