B.D. and D.D., parents of C.D. v. Puyallup School District

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Appellants’ request for oral
argument is denied.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
B.D. and D.D., parents of C.D.,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
v.
PUYALLUP SCHOOL DISTRICT,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 09-35846
D.C. No. 3:09-cv-05020-RJB
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
Robert J. Bryan, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 25, 2011**
Before: TROTT, GOULD and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
The parents of minor student C.D. appeal pro se from the district court's
order affirming an administrative decision under the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act (“IDEA”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We
review de novo the district court's decision that the school district complied with
FILED
OCT 28 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

09-35846
the IDEA, see N.B. v. Hellgate Elementary Sch. Dist., 541 F.3d 1202, 1207 (9th
Cir. 2008), and review its factual determinations for clear error, see J.L. v. Mercer
Island Sch. Dist., 592 F.3d 938, 949 (9th Cir. 2010). We affirm.
Based on the evidence in the record, the district court properly concluded
that the school district provided C.D. with a free appropriate public education
under the IDEA. See Van Duyn ex rel. Van Duyn v. Baker Sch. Dist. 5J, 502 F.3d
811, 823-25 (9th Cir. 2007) (no violation of the IDEA where school district
materially implemented the individualized educational program). The IDEA
accords educators discretion to select from various methods for meeting the
individualized needs of a student, provided those practices are reasonably
calculated to provide him with educational benefit. See, e.g., Adams v. Oregon,
195 F.3d 1141, 1149–50 (9th Cir. 1999). 20 U.S.C. § 1414(d)(1)(B) provides a list
of those individuals who must participate in designing an IEP; an expert on the
child's specific disability is not required. See R.P. v. Prescott Unified Sch. Dist.,
631 F.3d 1117, 1122 (9th Cir. 2011).
The record fully supports the hearing officer's and district judge's
conclusions and the parents’ remaining contentions on appeal are unpersuasive.
Each side will bear its own costs and fees.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --