United States District Court, E.D. Virginia, Norfolk Division
[Copyrighted Material Omitted]
School Board of the City of Suffolk, Plaintiff: Wendell Myron
Waller, LEAD ATTORNEY, Suffolk Public Schools, Office of the
School Board Attorney, Suffolk, VA.
Teri A. Rose, As Parent and Next Friend of C.A.R. a/k/a C.R.,
Defendant: Walter Neal Thorp, LEAD ATTORNEY, Law Offices of
Walter N. Thorp, Newport News, VA; Lois N. Manes,
BEACH SMITH, CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
matter comes before the court on cross motions for summary
judgment filed by the Plaintiff, School Board of the City of
Suffolk (" Suffolk" ), on May 4, 2015, ECF No. 16,
and the Defendant, Teri A. Rose (" Rose" ), on May
4, 2015, ECF No. 18. Suffolk appeals the decision of an
administrative hearing officer resolving a due process
complaint, filed by Rose, alleging violations of the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act ("
IDEA" ) related to her son, C.R. See 20 U.S.C. §
1415(c), (f), (i) . The hearing officer ruled in favor of
Rose, finding that Suffolk denied Rose's son, C.R., a
free and appropriate public education (" FAPE" ),
as required by IDEA.
3, 2015, the matter was referred to United States Magistrate
Judge Douglas E. Miller, pursuant to the provisions of 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 72(b), to conduct hearings, including evidentiary
hearings, if necessary, and to submit to the undersigned
proposed findings of fact, if applicable, and recommendations
for the disposition of the motions.
Magistrate Judge conducted a hearing on June 30, 2015, and
granted the parties' requests to hear and receive
additional evidence. ECF No. 24. The Magistrate Judge filed
the Report and Recommendation (" R& R" ) on August
10, 2015. ECF No. 33. The Magistrate Judge recommended
granting in part Rose's Motion for Summary Judgment,
denying Suffolk's Motion for Summary Judgment, affirming
in part the hearing officer's decision, vacating in part
the hearing officer's decision, and enjoining the parties
to meet, confer, and prepare a new Individualized Education
Plan (" IEP" ) that identifies C.R. as disabled
with autism, in addition to other health impairment (ADHD)
and specific learning disorder (written expression), for
purposes of assessing his eligibility to receive special
education and related services. Id. at 47-48.
of the R& R, the parties were advised of their right to file
written objections to the findings and recommendations made
by the Magistrate Judge. Id. at 48-49. Suffolk filed
its Objections to the R& R on August 25, 2015 ("
Suffolk's Objections" ). ECF No. 34. Rose did not
file any objections, but did file a Response to Suffolk's
Objections on September 8, 2015. ECF No. 35.
court also must address Rose's request for attorneys'
fees, made in the Brief in Support of Rose's Motion for
Summary Judgment. ECF No. 19 at 25-27. This request was
repeated in the Response to Suffolk's Objections. Resp.
to Pl.'s Objs. at 18-20. Suffolk has not responded to
this request, and it was not addressed by the Magistrate
STANDARD OF REVIEW
to Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the
court, having reviewed the record in its entirety, shall ...