Wehrspann v. Dubuque Community School District et al
Filing
31
ORDER Accepting 28 Report and Recommendation: The Report and Recommendation is adopted and the final decision of the ALJ is reversed. The matter is remanded for further consideration consistent with the Report and Recommendation. Plaintiff's request for attorney fees and costs is denied. Signed by Judge Linda R Reade on 8/14/2018. (skm)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA
EASTERN DIVISION
ALEX WEHRSPANN,
Plaintiff,
No. 15-CV-1029-LRR
vs.
ORDER
DUBUQUE COMMUNITY SCHOOL
DISTRICT and KEYSTONE AREA
EDUCATION AGENCY,
Defendants.
____________________
I. INTRODUCTION
The matter before the court is United States Chief Magistrate Judge C.J. Williams’s
Report and Recommendation (docket no. 28).
The Report and Recommendation
recommends that the court reverse the Administrative Law Judge’s (“ALJ”) decision that
Plaintiff Alex Wehrspann was not an eligible individual within the meaning of the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”), that the court remand the matter to
the ALJ for a more thorough examination of the issues and that the court deny Plaintiff’s
request for attorney fees and costs.
II. RELEVANT PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On September 25, 2015, Plaintiff filed a Complaint (docket no. 1) requesting that
the court reverse the decision of the ALJ, remand the matter to the Iowa Department of
Education and award Plaintiff reasonable attorney fees and costs. See Complaint at 15.
On November 12, 2015, Defendants Dubuque Community School District and Keystone
Area Education Agency (collectively, “Defendants”) filed an Answer (docket no. 3). On
June 20, 2016, Plaintiff filed the Plaintiff’s Brief (docket no. 11). On August 2, 2016,
Defendants filed the Defendants’ Brief (docket no. 13). On August 12, 2016, Plaintiff
filed the Reply Brief (docket no. 14).
On December 1, 2017, Plaintiff filed a
Supplemental Brief (docket no. 20). The matter was referred to Judge Williams. On July
27, 2018, Judge Williams issued the Report and Recommendation. Neither party has filed
objections to the Report and Recommendation, and the time for doing so has passed. See
LR 72(A) (“A party who objects to or seeks review or reconsideration of . . . a magistrate
judge’s report and recommendation must file specific, written objections to the . . . report
and recommendation within [fourteen] days after service of the . . . report and
recommendation.”).
III. STANDARD OF REVIEW
Pursuant to statute, this court’s standard of review for a magistrate judge’s report
and recommendation is as follows:
A judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of
those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or
recommendations to which objection is made. A judge of the
court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the
findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3) (providing that, when a party
properly objects to a report and recommendation on a dispositive motion, a district court
must review de novo the magistrate judge’s recommendation). The Eighth Circuit has
repeatedly held that it is reversible error for a district court to fail to conduct a de novo
review of a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation when such review is required.
See, e.g., United States v. Lothridge, 324 F.3d 599, 600 (8th Cir. 2003); Hosna v.
Groose, 80 F.3d 298, 306 (8th Cir. 1996); Hudson v. Gammon, 46 F.3d 785, 786 (8th
Cir. 1995); Belk v. Purkett, 15 F.3d 803, 815 (8th Cir. 1994). The statute governing
review provides only for de novo review of “those portions of the report or specified
proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.”
28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1). The court reviews the unobjected-to portions of the proposed findings or
recommendations for “plain error.” See United States v. Rodriguez, 484 F.3d 1006, 101011 (8th Cir. 2007) (noting that, where a party does not file objections to a magistrate’s
2
report and recommendation, the party waives the right to de novo review and the court will
review the decision for plain error).
IV. CONCLUSION
In this case, no objections have been filed, and it appears to the court upon review
of Judge Williams’s findings and conclusions that there is no ground to reject or modify
them. Therefore, the court ACCEPTS Judge Williams’s Report and Recommendation of
July 27, 2018. The Report and Recommendation (docket no. 28) is ADOPTED and the
final decision of the ALJ is REVERSED. The matter is REMANDED for further
consideration consistent with the Report and Recommendation. Further, Plaintiff’s request
for attorney fees and costs is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 14th day of August, 2018.
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?