D H H et al v. Kirbyville Consolidated Independent School District

Filing 80

ORDER overruling Plaintiffs' objections and adopting the Magistrate Judge's 76 Report and Recommendation. Plaintiffs' Rule 52(b)] Motion to Amend Judgment and Include Additional Findings of Fact and Brief in Support (Doc. No. 73) and Rule 59(e) Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment and Brief in Support(Doc. No. 74) are DENIED. Any other pending motions are denied as moot. Signed by District Judge Marcia A. Crone on 4/1/2020. (bjc, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

D H H, A MINOR STUDENT WITH
DISABILITIES, BY AND WITH AND
THROUGH HER
PARENT/GUARDIAN/NEXT FRIEND
ROB ANNA H; AND ROB ANNA H.,
PARENT/GUARDIAN/NEXT FRIEND
TO D.H.H., A MINOR STUDENT WITH
DISABILITIES;
Plaintiffs,
versus
KIRBYVILLE CONSOLIDATED
INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT,
Defendant.

EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

CASE NO. 1:18-CV-00120-MAC

ORDER OVERRULING PLAINTIFFS’ OBJECTIONS AND ADOPTING
MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
The court referred this case to the Honorable Zack Hawthorn, United States Magistrate
Judge, for pre-trial management. On August 27, 2019, the court adopted Judge Hawthorn’s Report
and Recommendation (Doc. No. 68) and denied Plaintiffs D.H.H., a minor student with
disabilities, and her parent/guardian/next friend Rob-Anna H.’s (collectively, “Plaintiffs”)
“Motion for Summary Judgment” (Doc. No. 44) and granted Defendant Kirbyville Consolidated
Independent School District’s (“KCISD”) “Motion for Summary Judgment” (Doc. No. 45). Doc.
No. 71. On September 30, 2019, Plaintiffs filed “[Rule 52(b)] Motion to Amend Judgment and
Include Additional Findings of Fact and Brief in Support” (Doc. No. 73) and “Rule 59(e) Motion
to Alter or Amend Judgment and Brief in Support” (Doc. No. 74). Judge Hawthorn entered a

report which recommended denying Plaintiffs’ Rule 52(b) (Doc. No. 73) and Rule 59(e) (Doc. No.
74) motions. Doc. No. 76. Plaintiffs timely filed objections to the report. Doc. No. 79.
A party who files timely, written objections to a magistrate judge’s report and
recommendation is entitled to a de novo determination of those findings or recommendations to
which the party specifically objects. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(2)-(3).
“Parties filing objections must specifically identify those findings [to which they object].
Frivolous, conclusive or general objections need not be considered by the district court.” Nettles
v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404, 410 n.8 (5th Cir. 1982) (en banc), overruled on other grounds by
Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc).
Plaintiffs raise objections to Judge Hawthorn’s conclusions regarding Plaintiffs’ Rule 52(b)
and 59(e) motions. First, Plaintiffs object to the conclusion that a Rule 52(b) motion is improper
as the court has not issued factual findings following a trial. 1 Doc. No. 79, p. 2-3. See Doc. No.
76, p. 3. Plaintiffs assert that trials involving Section 504 claims are rarely held at the Federal
District Court level and, therefore, that Plaintiffs are being unfairly denied relief under Rule 52(b).
Doc. No. 79, p. 2-3. However, Plaintiffs provide no Fifth Circuit rulings to support their position.
See Doc. No. 79, p. 2-3. Furthermore, the number of trials and judgments on the merits involving
such claims is irrelevant to whether such a judgment has been entered in this case.
Therefore, Plaintiffs’ Rule 52(b) motion is improper.
Second, Plaintiffs object to conclusions regarding D.H.H.’s IDEA and Section 504 claims.
Doc. No. 49, p. 4-6. The Supreme Court has “not read [Section] 504 as creating general tort
liability for educational malpractice because the Supreme Court in interpreting the IDEA has

Additionally, plaintiffs misconstrue Judge Hawthorn’s report, which never stated that a child bringing IDEA
and Section 504 claims cannot have a trial. Doc. No. 79, p. 3.
1

warned against a court’s substitution of its own judgment for educational decisions made by state
officials.” D.A. ex rel. Latasha A. v. Houston Indep. Sch. Dist., 629 F.3d 450, 454 (5th Cir.
2010)(internal quotations omitted). Because D.H.H.’s eighth-grade Section 504 or Title II ADA
claims only relate to providing a FAPE, KCISD satisfies its obligations under Section 504 and
Title II of the ADA if it properly evaluates a student in accordance with the IDEA, unless KCISD
engages in intentional discrimination. See Estate of Lance v. Lewisville Indep. Sch. Dist., 743 F.3d
982, 992 (5th Cir. 2014).

Intentional discrimination, characterized as bad faith or gross

misjudgment, must be shown in order to state a cause of action under Section 504. D.A. ex rel.
Latasha A., 629 F.3d at 454. See also Monahan v. State of Neb., 687 F.2d 1164, 1171 (8th Cir.
1982).
KCISD properly evaluated D.H.H. in accordance with the IDEA, and the Section 504 and
Title II ADA claims arise from the same factual content and seek the same relief as the IDEA
claims. Thus, because the Plaintiffs have not shown intentional discrimination, Plaintiffs’ Section
504 and Title II ADA claims must fail. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ objections to the court’s dismissal
of D.H.H.’s Section 504 or Title II ADA claims are overruled.
It is, therefore, ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ objections (Doc. No. 79) are OVERRULED,
the Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendation (Doc. No. 76) is ADOPTED, and Plaintiffs’
“[Rule 52(b)] Motion to Amend Judgment and Include Additional Findings of Fact and Brief in
Support” (Doc. No. 73) and “Rule 59(e) Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment and Brief in Support”
(Doc. No. 74) are DENIED. Any other pending motions are denied as moot.
SIGNED at Beaumont, Texas, this 1st day of April, 2020.

________________________________________
MARCIA A. CRONE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE