T.P.R. v. Montgomery Public Schools et al(MAG+)

Filing 19

ORDER adopting 18 Report and Recommendations; that defendants' 8 Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's IDEA claims is GRANTED and Plaintiff's IDEA claims are DISMISSED with prejudice; that defendants' 8 motion to dismiss the claims against the Montgomery Public Schools and the individual Defendants in their official capacities is GRANTED and Plaintiff's claims against the Montgomery Public Schools and the individual Defendants in their official capacities are DISMISSED wit h prejudice; that to the extent Plaintiff asserts that Defendants violated the Due Process Clause by failing to follow their own regulations and state law, Defendants' 8 motion to dismiss is GRANTED and Plaintiff's Due Process claim is DI SMISSED with prejudice; that to the extent Plaintiff asserts that Defendants violated the Due Process Clause by failing to provide adequate notice or give T.P.R. an opportunity to dispute the charges against him prior to his suspension and de facto e xpulsion, Defendants' 8 motion to dismiss is DENIED; that Plaintiff's claims that Defendants Washington, Everage, Johnson, LaCoste, Robinson, Thomas, Dilworth, and Price in their individual capacities violated the Due Process Clause by fa iling to provide adequate notice or give T.P.R. an opportunity to dispute the charges against him prior to his suspension and de facto expulsion are REFERRED BACK to the Magistrate Judge for appropriate proceedings. Signed by Honorable William Keith Watkins on 4/23/2009. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Appeals Checklist)(cc, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F O R THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA N O R T H E R N DIVISION T .P .R ., by and though his parent, D O N N A PATTERSON-RUDOLPH, P l a in tif f , v. M O N T G O M E R Y PUBLIC SCHOOLS, e t al., D e f e n d a n ts . ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

C A S E NO. 2:08cv813-WKW (WO)

ORDER O n April 2, 2009, the Magistrate Judge filed a Recommendation (Doc. # 18) in this c a se to which no timely objections have been filed. Upon an independent review of the file in this case and upon consideration of the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, it is O R D E R E D as follows: 1. 2. T h e Recommendation is ADOPTED. D e f e n d a n t s ' motion to dismiss Plaintiff's IDEA claims (Doc. # 8) is

G R A N T E D and Plaintiff's IDEA claims are DISMISSED with prejudice. 3. T h e Defendants' motion to dismiss the claims against the Montgomery Public

S ch o o ls and the individual Defendants in their official capacities (Doc. # 8) is GRANTED a n d Plaintiff's claims against the Montgomery Public Schools and the individual Defendants in their official capacities are DISMISSED with prejudice.

4.

T o the extent Plaintiff asserts that Defendants violated the Due Process Clause

b y failing to follow their own regulations and state law, Defendants' motion to dismiss (Doc. # 8) is GRANTED and Plaintiff's Due Process claim is DISMISSED with prejudice. 5. T o the extent Plaintiff asserts that Defendants violated the Due Process Clause

b y failing to provide adequate notice or give T.P.R. an opportunity to dispute the charges a g a i n s t him prior to his suspension and de facto expulsion, Defendants' motion to dismiss is DENIED. 6. P la in tif f 's claims that Defendants Washington, Everage, Johnson, LaCoste,

R o b in s o n , Thomas, Dilworth, and Price in their individual capacities violated the Due P ro c e ss Clause by failing to provide adequate notice or give T.P.R. an opportunity to dispute th e charges against him prior to his suspension and de facto expulsion are REFERRED B A C K to the Magistrate Judge for appropriate proceedings. D o n e this 23rd day of April 2009. /s/ W. Keith Watkins UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2