Smith v. District of Columbia

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
)
MABEL SMITH, )
Guardian of the minor child K.C. )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Civil Action No. 22-cv-2755 (TSC/ZMF)
)
)
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, )
)
Defendant. )
)
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiff contends that the District of Columbia violated the Individuals with
Disabilities in Education Act (“IDEA”) by failing to provide minor child K.C. (“the student”)
with a free appropriate public education (“FAPE”). See Report & Recommendation, ECF
No. 19 at 1–3 (“R&R”). A hearing officer rejected Plaintiff’s request for an independent
compensatory education assessment and a compensatory education award. R&R at 4–6.
Plaintiff challenged the hearing officer’s findings, Compl., ECF No. 1 ¶¶ 34–50, and the court
referred the case to a Magistrate Judge “for full case management up to and including
issuance of a Report and Recommendation on any dispositive motions,” Min. Order, Oct. 12,
2022. The parties subsequently cross-moved for summary judgment. See Mot. for Summary
Judgment, ECF No. 13; Cross Mot. for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 15. The Magistrate
Judge entered a report and recommendation (ECF No. 19) on July 31, 2023. Plaintiff has
objected to the report and recommendation. Objs. to R. & R., ECF No. 21; see Pls. P. & A. in
Supp. of Objs. to R. & R., ECF No. 21-2 (“Objections”).
Plaintiff’s objections are unavailing because each “merely rehash[es] an argument
presented and considered by the magistrate judge,” see Shurtleff v. U.S. EPA, 991 F. Supp. 2d
1, 8 (D.D.C. 2013):
• Plaintiff’s objection to the burden of proof, compare Objections at 8, with R&R at 8;
• Plaintiff’s objection to the finding that the hearing officer did not err in discounting
Plaintiff’s expert’s compensatory education recommendation and declining to order
an independent assessment, compare Objections at 9–13, with R&R at 8–9;
• Plaintiff’s objection to the finding that the hearing officer did not err in requiring
Plaintiff to find qualified professionals to supplement the record, compare
Objections at 12–13, with R&R at 8;
• Plaintiff’s objection to the finding that the hearing officer did not err in admitting
post-hearing declarations, compare Objections at 14–16, with R&R at 16–17;
• Plaintiff’s objection to the finding that the hearing officer did not reversibly err in
failing to address the notes from the March 1, 2022, team meeting, compare
Objections at 18–19, with R&R at 19 n.5;
• Plaintiff’s objection to the finding that the hearing officer did not err by
misclassifying the student’s dedicated aide, compare Objections at 19, with R&R
at 17–18;
• Plaintiff’s objection to the finding that the hearing officer did not err in failing to
reference the student’s recent medical assessments in his compensatory education
determination, compare Objections at 20–25, with R&R at 18–19;
• Plaintiff’s objection to the finding that the hearing officer did not err in their
treatment of Dr. Livelli’s, Ms. Valenzuela’s, and Plaintiff’s testimony, compare
Objections at 25–27, with R&R at 19–22; and
2
• Plaintiff’s objection to the finding that Defendant illegally denied Ms. Williams—an
expert witness for Plaintiff—the opportunity to conduct a classroom observation,
compare Objections at 27, with R&R at 10–11 n.2.
Objections such as these that simply repeat previous arguments are reviewed “only
for clear error.” M.O. v. District of Columbia, 20 F. Supp. 3d 31, 37 (D.D.C. 2013) (citation
omitted). A report and recommendation fails clear error review “only if on the entire
evidence the court is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been
committed.” P.J.E.S. v. Wolf, 502 F. Supp. 3d 492, 507 (D.D.C. 2020). As the report and
recommendation here thoroughly explains, the administrative record supports the hearing
officer’s conclusions. For example, the report and recommendation concludes that the
hearing officer did not err in determining that Dr. Livelli’s proposed compensatory education
award was not appropriate relief because the hearing officer acted within their discretion in
discrediting Dr. Livelli and instead relying on Ms. Valenzuela’s contrary opinion. R&R at 9–
10. That credibility determination was permissible not only because of Ms. Valenzuela’s
contrary view, but also because Dr. Livelli failed to observe the student in the classroom or
communicate with the student’s teacher or other providers. Id. at 10–12.
Moreover, for some of Plaintiff’s alleged procedural errors, the report and
recommendation considered whether the hearing officer was wrong, and still concludes that
even if that were the case, the error would not be reversible. E.g., id. at 17–18, 19 n.5, 21–
22. That reasoning is sound, because procedural errors are only reversible when they lead to
a violation of “substantive rights,” Cooper v. District of Columbia, 77 F. Supp. 3d 32, 37
(D.D.C. 2014), and here, Plaintiff fails to show that the hearing officer’s ultimate decision
was wrong, A.I. ex rel. Iapalucci v. District of Columbia, 402 F. Supp. 2d 152, 170–71
(D.D.C. 2005), or any other substantive right was undermined, see R&R at 17–18, 19 n.5,
3
21–22. There is no clear error.
Consequently, the court will ADOPT the report and ACCEPT the recommendations
of the Magistrate Judge. Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 13) will be
DENIED and Defendant’s Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 15) will be
GRANTED. An Order will accompany this Memorandum Opinion.
Date: December 18, 2023
Tanya S. Chutkan
TANYA S. CHUTKAN
United States District Judge
4