L.G.B, a minor, individually and by and through her parents, Christopher and Ginny Bobby v. School Board of the City of Norfolk, No. 2:2013cv00714 - Document 49 (E.D. Va. 2014)

Court Description: 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)

Download PDF

L.G.B, a minor, individually and by and through her parents, Christo... Board of the City of Norfolk Doc. 49 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 Dockets.Justia.com 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

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.