O.V., ET AL. V. DURHAM COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS BOARD OF EDUCATION, et al

Filing 61

ORDER signed by JUDGE CATHERINE C. EAGLES on 7/10/2018 adopting the Magistrate Judge's Recommendations 58 ; that the State Motion to Dismiss, Doc. 42 , is GRANTED and that the Local Motion to Dismiss, Doc. 47 , is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART as follows: 1. The Local Motion is DENIED as to their breach of contract claim and their IDEA, Section 504, and ADA claims arising on or after November 26, 2014, against the Durham Public Schools Board of Education; 2. The plaintiffs' Se ction 1983 and NCPDPA claims against Kristin Bell, Lessley Mader, Ashley Bunn, Sheri Allen, Julie Haase, Bert L'Homme, and the Durham Public Schools Board of Education are DISMISSED for failure to state a claim; 3. The plaintiffs' IDEA, Sec tion 504, ADA, and NCSES claims arising before November 26, 2014, are DISMISSED for failure to exhaust administrative remedies (and, as to such IDEA and NCSES claims, pursuant to the Settlement Agreements release); and 4. The plaintiffs' remaining NCSES claims are DISMISSED as abandoned. (Sheets, Jamie)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
1:17-CV-691
O.V., et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
DURHAM PUBLIC SCHOOLS
BOARD OF EDUCATION, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

ORDER

Two motions to dismiss the complaint are pending before the Court. Docs. 42, 47.
The United States Magistrate Judge filed a Recommendation in accordance with 28
U.S.C. § 636(b) and it was served on the parties. Docs. 58, 59. The plaintiffs timely
objected to the Recommendation. Doc. 60. After de novo consideration of the objections
and full consideration of the record, the Court adopts the opinion of the Magistrate Judge.
The arguments raised in the objection do not undermine the Magistrate Judge’s analysis
or conclusions, with which this Court agrees.
For the reasons stated by the Magistrate Judge, the plaintiffs may proceed on their
breach of contract claim and IDEA, Section 504, and ADA claims arising on or after
November 26, 2014, against the Durham Public Schools Board of Education. All other
claims against the Durham Board are dismissed. All claims against all other defendants
are dismissed.
It is hereby ORDERED that the State Motion to Dismiss, Doc. 42, is GRANTED
and that the Local Motion to Dismiss, Doc. 47, is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED
IN PART as follows:

1. The Local Motion is DENIED as to their breach of contract claim and their IDEA,
Section 504, and ADA claims arising on or after November 26, 2014, against the
Durham Public Schools Board of Education;
2. The plaintiffs’ Section 1983 and NCPDPA claims against Kristin Bell, Lessley
Mader, Ashley Bunn, Sheri Allen, Julie Haase, Bert L’Homme, and the Durham
Public Schools Board of Education are DISMISSED for failure to state a claim;
3. The plaintiffs’ IDEA, Section 504, ADA, and NCSES claims arising before
November 26, 2014, are DISMISSED for failure to exhaust administrative
remedies (and, as to such IDEA and NCSES claims, pursuant to the Settlement
Agreement’s release); and
4. The plaintiffs’ remaining NCSES claims are DISMISSED as abandoned.
This the 10th day of July, 2018.

________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2