UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------X For Online Publication Only BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE UNIONDALE UNION FREE SCHOOL DISTRICT
Plaintiff,
-against- ORDER 18-CV-1038 (JMA) (AYS) J.P. and S.R., individually, and as parents and legal guardians of S.P., a minor,
Defendants. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------X AZRACK, United States District Judge:
Plaintiff, Board of Education of the Uniondale Union Free School District (“Plaintiff”)
commenced this action on February 2, 2018, pursuant to Section 1415(i)(2) of the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”), 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq. On April 27, 2018, defendants J.P.
and S.R., acting on behalf of their minor child, S.P., (collectively, “Defendants”), filed a motion
for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction, seeking an order directing Plaintiff
to reimburse and pay S.P.’s tuition at the Vincent Smith School. Defendants’ motion also requests
that the Court grant attorney’s fees to Defendants as “prevailing parties” in accordance with the
IDEA’s fee-shifting provision. On April 27, 2018, I referred Defendants’ motion to Magistrate
Judge Anne Y. Shields for a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”).
On June 21, 2018, Judge Shields issued an R&R recommending that Defendants’ motion
be granted in part and denied in part. On June 27, 2018, Plaintiff filed objections to Judge Shields’
R&R. Having conducted a review of the full record and the applicable law, I adopt Judge
Shields’ R&R in its entirety as the opinion of the Court.
In reviewing a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, the Court must “make a de
1
novo determination of those portions of the report or . . . recommendations to which
objection[s][are] made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); see also Brown v. Ebert, No. 05–CV–5579,
2006 WL 3851152, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 29, 2006). The Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in
whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1)(C). Those portions of a report and recommendation to which there is no specific
reasoned objection are reviewed for clear error. See Pall Corp. v. Entegris, Inc., 249 F.R.D. 48,
51 (E.D.N.Y. 2008).
I have undertaken a de novo review of the record, the R&R, and the instant objections, and
I agree with Judge Shields’ comprehensive and well-reasoned R&R. Accordingly, the Court grants
in part and denies in part Defendants’ motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary
injunction. Specifically, Defendants’ motion is granted to the extent that it requests an order
directing Plaintiff to reimburse Defendants and to fund S.P.’s tuition at Vincent Smith School from
November 29, 2017 through the conclusion of this action. The Court denies Defendants’ request
for attorney’s fees without prejudice to renewal upon the conclusion of this action.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: August 15, 2018 Central Islip, New York
/s/ (JMA) JOAN M. AZRACK UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2