Bobby et al v. School Board of the City of Norfolk
Filing
49
ORDER: denying 40 Motion for Attorney Fees; adopting Report and Recommendations re 46 Report and Recommendations. The court, having examined the Defendant's Objections to the R&R regarding Attorney's Fees, and having made de novo find ings with respect thereto, overrules the Defendant'sObjections, and does hereby adopt and approve in full the findings and recommendations set forth in the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge filed on September 16, 2014. The court DENIES the Defendant's Motion for Attorney's Fees under 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(3)(B)(i). (Copies distributed as directed on 10/20/2014.) Signed by Chief District Judge Rebecca Beach Smith and filed on 10/20/2014. (bgra)
FILED
UNITED
STATES
DISTRICT
EASTERN DISTRICT
OF
COURT
VIRGINIA
OCT 2 0 2014
Norfolk Division
CLEHK,
BOBBY,
RT
et a l . ,
Plaintiffs,
v.
SCHOOL
ACTION NO.
BOARD
OF
THE
CITY
2:13cv714
OF NORFOLK,
Defendant.
ORDER
On January 22, 2014,
on
behalf
Amended
of
Complaint
Education Act
Hearing
L.G.B.
(collectively,
under
("IDEA")
Officer
L.G.B., and Christopher and Ginny Bobby
the
the
"Plaintiffs"),
Individuals
with
filed
an
Disabilities
appealing the decision of the Independent
("IHO")
that confirmed the education plans
L.G.B. , a minor child who is disabled by autism.
ECF No.
for
6. On
February 4, 2014, the Defendant,
the School Board of the City of
Norfolk,
ECF
filed
an
February 6, 2014,
to
Magistrate
Answer.
No.
7.
By
Order
of
the matter, at a threshold level, was referred
Judge
provisions of 28 U.S.C.
of Civil Procedure 72(b)
Douglas
E.
Miller,
§ 636(b)(1)(B)
and
pursuant
(C)
to
the
and Federal Rule
for a Report and Recommendation ("R&R")
based upon the administrative record in the case. ECF No. 8.
On
Summary
March 28, 2014,
Judgment,
ECF
the
No.
Plaintiffs
27,
and
on
filed
that
a
Motion
same
day,
for
the
Defendant filed a Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment.
The
Plaintiffs
filed
their
No. 30. On that same day,
No.
31.
On May 2, 2014,
Response
on
April
ECF No. 28.
14,
2014.
ECF
the Defendant filed its Response.
ECF
the Magistrate Judge held a hearing on
both Motions for Summary Judgment. ECF No. 33.
On
May 30, 2014,
recommended
Judgment,
the
granting
affirming
Plaintiffs'
Magistrate
the
the
Judge
Defendant's
decision
of
an
Motion
the
Motion for Summary Judgment.
filed
IHO,
for
and
ECF No.
R&R
that
Summary
denying
34.
the
By copy of
the R&R, the parties were advised of their right to file written
objections thereto.
Objections
to
the
June 26, 2014,
Plaintiffs'
On June 13, 2014, the Plaintiffs filed their
the
Magistrate
Judge's
Defendant
Objections.
ECF
R&R.
filed
No.
ECF
its
37.
No.
Response
By
Final
35.
to
On
the
Order
of
July 7, 2014, the court adopted and approved the findings in the
R&R.
ECF NO.
38.
On July 21,
under
the
IDEA
2014,
and
the Defendant,
pursuant
to
20
as the prevailing party
U.S.C.
§ 1415 (i) (3) (B) (i) ,
filed a Motion for Attorney's Fees and a Memorandum in Support.
ECF Nos.
40, 41. On August 21, 2014,
Memorandum
in
August 21, 2014,
Douglas
E.
Opposition.
the
Miller,
matter
pursuant
ECF
was
to
the Plaintiffs filed their
No.
referred
the
44.
to
By
Order
Magistrate
provisions
of
28
of
Judge
U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(B)
for
a
and
Report
(C)
and
and Federal Rule of
Recommendation
Civil Procedure 72(b)
("R&R
regarding
Attorney's
Fees"). ECF No. 45. The Magistrate Judge filed the R&R regarding
Attorney's
Fees
on September
16,
2014,
wherein he
denying the Defendant's Motion for Attorney's Fees.
recommended
ECF No. 46.
By copy of the R&R regarding Attorney's Fees,
the parties
were advised of their right to file written objections thereto.
On September 30, 2014,
No.
47,
and
on
Reply. ECF No.
entirety,
of
the
Fed. R.
October 14, 2014,
the
Plaintiffs
filed
ECF
their
48.
Pursuant
Procedure,
the Defendant filed its Objections,
to
the
Rule
72(b)
court,
of
having
the
Federal
reviewed
the
Rules
of
record
Civil
in
its
shall make a de novo determination of those portions
R&R
to
which
Civ. P.
the
Defendant
has
specifically objected.
72(b). The court may accept,
reject, or modify,
in whole or in part, the recommendation of the magistrate judge,
or
recommit
the
matter
to
him
with
instructions.
28
U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1).
The
the
court,
R&R
regarding
findings
with
Objections,
findings
having
Attorney's
respect
and does
and
examined the Defendant's
Fees,
thereto,
hereby
recommendations
adopt
set
and
having
overrules
Objections
made
the
and approve
forth
in
the
de
to
novo
Defendant's
in full
the
Report
and
Recommendation
September
Defendant's
of
16,
the
United
2014.
Motion
States
Magistrate
Accordingly,
for Attorney's
the
Fees
Judge
court
under
20
filed
DENIES
U.S.C.
on
the
§ 1415
(i) (3) (B) (i) .
The Clerk is DIRECTED to
forward a
copy of
this Order
to
counsel for the parties.
IT
IS
SO ORDERED.
/S/
Rebecca Beach Smith
United States District Judge "V@rREBECCA BEACH SMITH
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
October ^j9, 2014
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?