M v. Dripping Springs ( 2000 )

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
__________________________
No. 99-50572
__________________________
SYLVIE M., by next friend Diane R.;
Diane R.,
Plaintiffs-Appellants
versus
BOARD OF EDUCATION OF DRIPPING SPRINGS
INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT; ET AL
Defendants
BOARD OF EDUCATION OF DRIPPING SPRINGS
INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT
Defendant-Appellee.
___________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
For the Western District of Texas
(A-97-CV-314)
___________________________________________________
May 05, 2000
Before WIENER, BENAVIDES, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Plaintiffs-Appellants Sylvie M. and Diane R. (collectively,
“Appellants”) ask us to reverse the district court’s reversal of
the State Education Hearing Officer’s decision that the defendant-
appellee (“School District”) did not provide a free appropriate
public education (“FAPE”), and to reverse both the Hearing
Officer’s and the district court’s rulings that Appellants are not
entitled to reimbursement for residential placement of Sylvie at
the Elan School because it was not appropriate for her disability.
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that
this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
Appellants’ claims are grounded, alternatively, in the Individuals
with Disability in Education Act (“IDEA”) and the Rehabilitation
Act. We affirm the district court’s dismissal of Appellants’
actions.
After carefully reviewing the material facts at issue in this
case, as reflected by the record and as related in briefs of
counsel, and applying the appropriate law to those facts, we
conclude that the district court did not commit reversible error in
holding, under the appropriate “essentially de novo” standard of
review, that the Individual Educational Plan (“IEP”) provided by
the school district was in compliance with the appropriate
procedures and was reasonably calculated to enable Sylvie to
receive educational benefits. Neither do we find reversible error
in the district court’s determination that Sylvie’s unilateral
residential school placement by her parents was inappropriate and
thus not reimbursable. See Cypress-Fairbanks Independent School
District v. Michael F., 118 F.3d 245 (5th Cir. 1997); see also
Houston Independent School District v. Bobby R., 200 F.3d 341 (5th
Cir. 2000).
We conclude that the arguments advanced on behalf of
Appellants are insufficient to justify reversal of the district
court’s judgment, which, in all respects, is
AFFIRMED.
2