Michael Conville filed a complaint for judicial review of an administrative decision of the Department of Education (DOE) denying discharge of his federally guaranteed student loans. Both parties moved for summary judgment. Determining there was no evidence that the DOE’s decision was unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious, the district court 1 denied Con-ville’s motion, granted the DOE’s, and dismissed the complaint. Conville appeals.

For the reasons the district court stated, we conclude that the DOE was entitled to summary judgment. See South Dakota v. Dep’t of Interior, 487 F.3d 548, 551 (8th Cir. 2007) (standard of review). The existence of the student loan debts was undisputed. Notwithstanding Conville’s arguments, the DOE reasonably decided that his debts were enforceable and that there was no basis for their discharge. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.