that the lender seeks recovery from the borrower before the lender makes a claim against the insurance .... [T]he borrower does not have the right to void his debt simply because he is now dissatisfied with the lender’s collection efforts.”); Phillips v. Pennsylvania Higher Educ. Assistance Agency, 497 F.Supp. 712, 723 (W.D.Pa.1980), rev’d on other grounds, 657 F.2d 554 (3rd Cir.1981) (“It would be anomalous to hold that a provision enacted for the benefit of the federal government creates a private cause of action for defaulting students.”). Only the Eastern District of Michigan has analyzed, on the merits, a student debtor’s claim that the government has failed to exercise due diligence in its collection efforts. See United States v. Robbins, 819 F.Supp. 672, 679 (E.D.Mich.1993) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Rhodes, 788 F.Supp. 339, 343
holding that unavailable evidence may constitute newly discovered evidence if the failure to learn of the evidence did not result from the defendants lack of due diligence holding that the injunction did not constitute a claim holding that sending only four letters to student as collection effort did not constitute lack of diligence holding that juveniles use of the f word in dispute with principal and another student over whether student had stolen her money did not constitute fighting words holding that plaintiffs letters do not constitute a cda claim in part because there was a complete lack of certification