Rosenfield v. North Kingstown School Department

Filing 17

ORDER denying 2 Motion to Remand to State Court; adopting 6 Report and Recommendations; adopting 8 Report and Recommendations; denying 9 Motion to Enforce ; adopting 12 Report and Recommendations; granting 10 Motion to Dismiss.. So Ordered by Judge William E. Smith on 8/9/13. (Jackson, Ryan)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND
___________________________________
)
)
)
)
Petitioner,
)
)
v.
)
)
NORTH KINGSTOWN SCHOOL DEPARTMENT, )
)
Respondent.
)
___________________________________)
JUSTINE ROSENFIELD, parent and
next friend to M.R.,

C.A. No. 13-222 S

Order
WILLIAM E. SMITH, United States District Judge.
Before

the

Court

are

three

Report

and

Recommendations

issued by Magistrate Judge Patricia A. Sullivan in the abovecaptioned matter.

On April 30, 2013, Judge Sullivan issued a

Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 6) recommending that this
Court deny Petitioner’s Motion to Remand (ECF No. 2).

On May 6,

2013, Judge Sullivan issued a second Report and Recommendation
(ECF

No.

Motion

to

8)

recommending

Enforce

(ECF

that

No.

this

2).

Court

Because

deny

Petitioner’s

Petitioner

Justine

Rosenfield has filed no objections to either of these two Report
and Recommendations and the Court agrees with Judge Sullivan’s
legal

reasoning,

this

Court

now

accepts

Judge

recommendations pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

Sullivan’s

On June 13, 2013, Judge Sullivan issued a third Report and
Recommendation (ECF No. 12) recommending that this Court deny
Petitioner’s Renewed Motion to Enforce (ECF No. 9) and grant
Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 10).

Petitioner filed

an Objection to this Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 14) on
July 1, 2013, arguing that (1) a preliminary injunction standard
was

inappropriate

for

a

Motion

to

Enforce,

(2)

that

Judge

Sullivan failed to give due weight to the evidence before her,
and (3) that the matter should not have been dismissed in its
entirety.
After

reviewing

the

objections to be meritless.

record,

the

Court

finds

these

First, while Rhode Island has yet

to develop its case law regarding the standard for petitions to
enforce

under

R.I.

Gen.

Laws

§

16-39-3.2,

other

courts

have

indicated that the legal standard for a preliminary injunction
applies to motions to enforce administrative orders.

S.A. ex

rel. L.A. v. Exeter Union Sch. Dist., No. CV F 10-347 LJO SMS,
2010 WL 4942539, at *16 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 24, 2010) (finding that
traditional

preliminary

injunction

standard

applied

to

application for enforcement of administrative stay-put order).
Second, Judge Sullivan found the testimony of Ms. Langois,
the paraprofessional who aided M.R. with bathroom hygiene, to be
“highly credible” evidence demonstrating the school district’s
compliance with the interim order.

Petitioner failed to provide

any evidence contradicting Ms. Langois’ testimony and therefore
failed to prove that the school district was not complying with
the interim order.

The Court is unwilling to retry the facts of

the case or hold an additional evidentiary hearing.
Third, dismissing the action in its entirety is appropriate
due to the lack of any pending claims.

Petitioner has twice

failed to convince this Court to grant a Motion to Enforce and
it makes little sense to afford her a third opportunity.
Because this Court agrees with Judge Sullivan’s analysis,
it adopts her June 13, 2013 Report and Recommendation pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

Petitioner’s Motion to Remand, Motion

to

Motion

Enforce,

and

Renewed

to

Enforce

Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ William E. Smith
William E. Smith
United States District Judge
Date: August 9, 2013

are

DENIED

and