Estelle Singletary v. Department of Health and Human Services, No. 12-2002 (4th Cir. 2013)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-2002 ESTELLE SINGLETARY, Plaintiff Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES/NC INFANT TODDLER PROGRAM, Defendant Appellee, and DEBORAH CARROLL, Officer, Branch Head; PHILLIP R. DIXON, Hearing Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:11-cv-00307-BO) Submitted: December 6, 2012 Decided: January 3, 2013 Before AGEE, KEENAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Estelle Singletary, Appellant Pro Se. Mabel Y. Bullock, Donna Drake Smith, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Estelle Singletary appeals the district court s dismissal of her civil complaint alleging violations of Part C of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act ( IDEA ), 20 U.S.C. §§ 1431-1444 (2006). The district court dismissed Singletary s action pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), concluding that she failed to state a claim because she did not allege that her daughter was denied a free appropriate public education under the IDEA, and thus could not obtain relief on her claims that the Defendants violated the IDEA s procedural requirements. Finding no reversible error, we affirm. Singletary first argues that the dismissal of her complaint deprived her of an opportunity to be heard on her IDEA claims. However, she received such an opportunity through the adjudication (2006). To of her the complaint extent she filed under contends 20 that U.S.C. the § 1439 traditional pleading requirements and Rules of Civil Procedure do not apply to her IDEA claims, posture of her case. Singletary misapprehends the procedural See Kirkpatrick v. Lenoir Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 216 F.3d 380, 387 (4th Cir. 2000) (holding that an IDEA action under 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(2)(A) is not an appeal but an original civil action to which Procedure apply). 3 the Federal Rules of Civil Liberally challenges the construed, dismissal of Singletary s her claims under brief Rule also 12(b)(6). This court reviews de novo the district court s dismissal of a complaint claim. Cnty., under Rule Kensington Md., 684 12(b)(6) Volunteer F.3d 462, for Fire 467 failure Dep t, (4th Cir. Inc. to v. a Montgomery 2012). A complainant s pleadings must be liberally construed. v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007). state pro se Erickson Nevertheless, [t]o survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face. (2009) (internal Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 quotation marks omitted). Bare legal conclusions, unwarranted inferences, and unjustified conclusions are insufficient to state a claim. Id. at 664. Part B of the IDEA ensures a free appropriate public education ( FAPE ) for children with disabilities aged three through twenty-one, provided through an individualized education program ( IEP ) focused on the child s educational needs. See 20 U.S.C. §§ 1401(d)(9)(B), 1412(a)(1)(A), 1414(d) (2006); JH ex rel. JD v. Henrico Cnty. Sch. Bd., 395 F.3d 185, 187 (4th Cir. 2005). In contrast, Part C ensures that states provide free and appropriate early intervention services to children with disabilities under the age of three through the implementation of an individualized family service plan ( IFSP ). 4 20 U.S.C. §§ 1431(b), 1432(4). services as diagnostic provided occupational and in IFSPs may, as appropriate, provide such evaluative the child s and services, natural personnel. See 20 U.S.C. §§ Sch. Broward Bd. 2007). of physical Cnty., and therapy, social environment medical work, by to be qualified 1431(b), 1432(4) (2006); DP v. 483 F.3d 725, 726-27 (11th Cir. While IFSPs may include an educational component, they do not necessarily include such a component. DP, 483 F.3d at 727. Both Part B and Part C provide procedural safeguards to protect the child s rights under the IDEA. See 20 U.S.C. §§ 1415, 1439. As the district court noted, this court has held that, State s while a failure to comply with the procedural requirements in Part B may be sufficient to establish the denial of a FAPE, a procedural violation will not support a cognizable claim under Part B unless the parent can show the procedural violation actually interfered with the child s FAPE. Gadsby by Gadsby v. Grasmick, 109 F.3d 940, 956 (4th Cir. 1997); see DiBuo ex rel. DiBuo v. Bd. of Educ. of Worcester Cnty., 309 F.3d 184, 190-91 (4th Cir. 2002). However, because the state is not required to provide a FAPE under Part C of the IDEA, Singletary could not be required to allege that her daughter was denied a FAPE in order to properly allege a procedural violation under Part C. See, e.g., Andrew M. v. Del. Cnty. Office of Mental 5 Health & Mental Retardation, 490 F.3d 337, 348, 350 (3d Cir. 2007). Nevertheless, on the available record, we find no basis to conclude that a principle analogous to that in Gadsby should not be applied under Part C. Applying Gadsby to Singletary s amended complaint, we conclude that Singletary did not allege sufficient facts to plausibly demonstrate that her daughter under was Part denied C. appropriate Thus, we early conclude intervention that the services district court properly dismissed Singletary s complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). * Accordingly, we affirm the district court s judgment. We dispense contentions with are oral argument adequately because presented in the facts and the materials legal before this Court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED * Defendants Dixon and Carroll have not been made parties to this appeal. In any event, because we conclude that Singletary s amended complaint failed to state a cognizable IDEA claim against any Defendant, dismissal of Singletary s claims against Dixon and Carroll ultimately was proper. 6

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.