Texte intégral
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GERALD NOBLE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
ARNE DUNCAN, U.S. Secretary of
Education,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 09-35440
D.C. No. 3:08-cv-00749-MO
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Oregon
Michael W. Mosman, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 29, 2010**
Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Gerald Noble appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his
action challenging the Secretary of Education’s promulgation of certain lending
regulations as inconsistent with Congressional intent. We have jurisdiction under
FILED
JUL 09 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS
-- 1 of 2 --
09-35440 2
28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Manzarek v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins.
Co., 519 F.3d 1025, 1030 (9th Cir. 2008) (failure to state a claim); Arpin v. Santa
Clara Valley Transp. Agency, 261 F.3d 912, 919 (9th Cir. 2001) (summary
judgment). We affirm.
We are not persuaded by Noble’s contentions regarding whether the
regulations governing late disbursements of Grad PLUS loans to students, 34 C.F.R.
§§ 668.164(g) and 682.207(f), are based on an impermissible construction of the
Higher Education Act, 20 U.S.C. §§ 1070-1099. See Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. NRDC,
467 U.S. 837, 842-44 (1984) (when Congress expressly delegates authority to an
agency to fill in a gap, the decision of that agency should be given deference).
The district court properly dismissed Noble’s claims seeking injunctive relief
because he failed to show that the Secretary acted ultra vires in this matter. See 20
U.S.C. § 1082.
Noble’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
Noble’s motion to expedite is denied as moot.
AFFIRMED.
-- 2 of 2 --