WARNER v. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION (2021)

[Unpublished]

Frank Warner appeals the district court's ² adverse grant of summary judgment in his action appealing the Department of Education's (DOE's) administrative decision upholding the validity of his student loan. Upon careful review, we affirm. See El Dorado Chem. Co. v. U.S. Env't Prot. Agency, 763 F.3d 950, 955 (8th Cir. 2014) (de novo review of district court's decision whether agency action violates Administrative Procedure Act; reviewing court shall uphold agency action unless it is arbitrary and capricious). We agree that the DOE's decision finding Warner's loan enforceable was not arbitrary and capricious, as the administrative record established the loan's existence, assignation to the DOE, and default status. See United States v. Petroff-Kline, 557 F.3d 285, 290 (6th Cir. 2009) (to recover on promissory note, government must show that defendant signed it, government is present owner or holder, and note is in default). We also find that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Warner's motion to strike, see Waldoch v. Medtronic, Inc., 757 F.3d 822, 829 (8th Cir. 2014) (standard of review); Sierra Club v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng'rs, 771 F.2d 409, 413 (8th Cir. 1985) (existing administrative record may be supplemented by affidavits or other explanatory proof); or exhibit bias in its ruling, see Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555, 114 S.Ct. 1147, 127 L.Ed.2d 474 (1994) (judicial rulings alone almost never constitute valid basis for finding of bias).

The judgment is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

FOOTNOTES

2.   The Honorable D.P. Marshall Jr., Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas.

PER CURIAM.