N.M. et al v. Central York School District

Filing 53

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION of the magistrate judge 48 , GRANTING deft's MSJ 32 & REVERSING decision of admin law judge to extent it held that the Central York SD failed to provide NM w/ free appropriate education in least restrictive environment & VACATING compensatory-education award, DENYING pltfs' motion for jdgmt on admin record 37 & directing Clrk of Ct to CLOSE case. (See order for complete details.) Signed by Honorable Christopher C. Conner on 11/23/10. (ki)

N.M. et al v. Central York School District

Doc. 53

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

N.M., through her Guardians and Grandparents, SALEEM M. and SHAHIDA M., and SALEEM M. and SHAHIDA M. in their own right, Plaintiffs v. CENTRAL YORK SCHOOL DISTRICT, Defendant

: : : : : : : : : : :

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:09-CV-969

(Judge Conner)

ORDER AND NOW, this 23rd day of November, 2010, upon consideration of the report of United States Magistrate Judge William T. Prince (Doc. 48), recommending that defendant's motion for summary judgment (Doc. 32) be granted, and plaintiffs' motion for judgment on the administrative record (Doc. 37) be denied, and, following an independent review of the record and noting that plaintiffs N.M., through her Guardians and Grandparents, filed objections1 to the report on September 24, 2010 (Doc. 51), and the court finding Judge Prince's analysis to be thorough and well-reasoned, and the court finding plaintiffs' objections to be without merit and squarely addressed by Judge Prince's report, it is hereby ORDERED that:

Where objections to a magistrate judge's report and recommendation are filed, the court must perform a de novo review of the contested portions of the report. Supinski v. United Parcel Serv., Civ. A. No. 06-0793, 2009 WL 113796, at *3 (M.D. Pa. Jan. 16, 2009) (citing Sample v. Diecks, 885 F.2d 1099, 1106 n. 3 (3d Cir. 1989); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c)). "In this regard, Local Rule of Court 72.3 requires `written objections which . . . specifically identify the portions of the proposed findings, recommendations or report to which objection is made and the basis for those objections.'" Id. (citing Shields v. Astrue, Civ. A. No. 07-417, 2008 WL 4186951, at *6 (M.D. Pa. Sept. 8, 2008)).

1

Dockets.Justia.com

1. 2.

The report of Magistrate Judge Prince (Doc. 48) is ADOPTED. Defendant's motion for summary judgment and disposition on the administrative record (Doc. 32) is GRANTED, and the decision of the administrative law judge is REVERSED to the extent that it held that the Central York School District failed to provide N.M. with a free appropriate education in the least restrictive environment and the compensatoryeducation award is hereby VACATED. Plaintiffs' motion for judgment on the administrative record (Doc. 37) is DENIED. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this matter.

3.

4.

S/ Christopher C. Conner CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER United States District Judge