Full Opinion (html_with_citations)

                             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