Young
United States v. Young
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
Brian Borden Young appeals pro se the district court’s summary judgment in favor of the United States in the government’s action pursuant to the Federal Debt Collection Procedure Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 3001-3308 , for unpaid student loans. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo the district court’s grant of summary judgment. Margolis v. Ryan, 140 F.3d 850, 852 (9th Cir.1998). We affirm.
Because Young failed to create a genuine issue of material fact in response to the government’s prima facie case of indebtedness, the district court properly granted summary judgment. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 251-52 , 106 S.Ct. 2505 , 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986) (summary judgment is appropriate where the documentary evidence produced by the parties permits only one conclusion); see also Brannan v. United Student Aid Funds, Inc., 94 F.3d 1260 , 1262 n. 3 (9th Cir.1996).
Because Young does not have a property interest in a college transcript, see Juras v. Aman Collection Serv., Inc., 829 F.2d 739, 742-43 (9th Cir.1987) (per curiam), and because Young’s remaining counterclaims are untimely, see Winter v. United States, 244 F.3d 1088, 1090…