Shaw v. District of Columbia ( 2019 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
ANTOINETTE SHAW,
Plaintiff,
v. No. 17-cv-0738 (DLF/RMM)
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,
Defendant.
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
On February 8, 2019, Magistrate Judge Robin M. Meriweather filed a thorough and well-
reasoned Report and Recommendation recommending that both the plaintiff’s Motion for
Summary Judgment, Dkt. 10, and the Defendant’s Cross Motion for Summary Judgment, Dkt.
13, be granted in part and denied in part. See R&R, Dkt. 28. Neither party filed any objections
to the Report and Recommendation. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Rule 72.3(c) of the Rules of the
United States District Court for the District of Columbia, the findings and recommendations
made in the Report and Recommendation are ACCEPTED IN WHOLE and the Report and
Recommendation is ADOPTED AS THE OPINION OF THIS COURT. It is further
ORDERED that the plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment, Dkt. 10, is GRANTED
IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. It is also
ORDERED that the Defendant’s Cross Motion for Summary Judgment, Dkt. 13, is
GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. It is finally
ORDERED that this case is REMANDED to the Hearing Officer for further
proceedings consistent with the Report and Recommendation. Those proceedings should include
the following: (1) conducting an additional hearing to determine an appropriate remedy for
DCPS’s denial of a FAPE to S.S. during the 2015–2016 school year and providing a detailed
evidence-based analysis of the appropriate relief necessary to redress DCPS’s reliance on
outdated evaluations during the triennial review; (2) determining an appropriate remedy for
DCPS’s failure to provide S.S. a FAPE by neglecting to provide prior written notice of S.S.’s
graduation; (3) further developing the record and determining whether DCPS denied S.S. a
FAPE by awarding her a diploma in 2016, including making factual findings about whether S.S.
satisfied the diploma requirements at Anacostia High School in the 2015 to 2016 school year and
analyzing whether any applicable regulatory requirements governed S.S.’s eligibility for a high
school diploma; and (4) fashioning an appropriate remedy if the Hearing Officer finds that S.S.’s
graduation denied S.S. a FAPE.
February 26, 2019 ________________________
DABNEY L. FRIEDRICH
United States District Judge
2