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 January 1, 2019, the parties both
filed motions for summary judgment. (ECF Nos. 35, 43.) I referred these motion to Magistrate Judge
Anne Y. Shields for a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”).
On August 23, 2019, Judge Shields issued an R&R recommending that the Decision of the
State Review Officer dated November 29, 2017 be affirmed in its entirety, that Plaintiff’s motion
for summary judgment be denied in its entirety, and that Defendants’ motion for summary
judgment be granted in part and denied in part, as set forth in the R&R, ECF No. 50.)
On September 6, 2019, 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 Plaintiff’s objections, and I
agree with Judge Shields’ comprehensive and well-reasoned R&R and adopt it as the opinion of the
Court.
The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly and to close this case.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: September 30, 2019 Central Islip, New York
/s/ (JMA) JOAN M. AZRACK UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2