Estep

MEMORANDUM **

Defendant-appellant Betty Kay Estep appeals pro se the magistrate judge’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff-appellee United States in a debt collection action stemming from two student loans. On appeal, Estep apparently argues that the magistrate judge erred in granting the motion for summary judgment because the United States improperly inflated its damages by waiting fourteen years to collect the debt, and that she should not be held responsible for the debt. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and we affirm.

We review the grant of summary judgment de novo under the same standard applied in the lower court. Delta Savings Bank v. United States, 265 F.3d 1017, 1021 (9th Cir.2001) (citations omitted), cert, denied, Kim v. United States, — U.S.-, 122 S.Ct. 816 , 151 L.Ed.2d 700 (2002). Estep’s arguments that the United States improperly inflated its damages, that the United States has an unfair advantage in debt collection, and that her debt should be reduced because women earn lower wages than men do, were not raised below and, therefore, will not be considered on appeal. See Slaven v. Am. Trading Tramp. Co., Inc., 146 F.3d 1066 ,…