T.M. v. Gwinnett County School District

FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
NOVEMBER 22, 2011
JOHN LEY
CLERK
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 11-10282
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:10-cv-00370-ODE
T.M.,
by next friend and guardian S.M.,
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
GWINNETT COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT,
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia
________________________
(November 22, 2011)
Before HULL, MARCUS and BLACK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:

-- 1 of 3 --

T.M., by next friend and guardian S.M., appeals from the final judgment of the
district court granting Gwinnett County School District’s motion for judgment on the
administrative record. The heart of T.M.’s claim is that the School District failed to
provide him a “free appropriate public education,” as required under the Individuals
with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”), 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq. In particular,
T.M. objects, on both procedural and substantive grounds, to the Individualized
Educational Program (“IEP”) that the School District developed for him. The School
District responds that the IEP developed for T.M. was procedurally adequate, was
tailored to T.M.’s individualized needs, and offered T.M. a free appropriate public
education.
After thorough review and oral argument, we affirm. We do so based on the
district court’s thorough and well-reasoned opinion of December 20, 2010. We can
discern no error in the district court’s conclusion that T.M. was provided a “free
appropriate public education.” T.M.’s IEP was neither procedurally nor substantively
deficient under Board of Education v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176 (1982).
We observe that in reaching the conclusion that T.M.’s IEP was “reasonably
calculated to provide a meaningful educational benefit” under Rowley, the district
court employed a four-factor test derived from the Fifth Circuit’s decision in Cypress-
Fairbanks Independent School District v. Michael F. ex rel Barry F., 118 F.3d 245
2

-- 2 of 3 --

(5th Cir. 1997). We need not decide today whether the Cypress-Fairbanks test is the
only one to be employed in IEP inquiries. It is enough to say that the same result
would have been reached, whether by application of the Cypress-Fairbanks test or by
direct application of the IDEA, the corresponding regulations, the Supreme Court’s
decision in Rowley, and the existing law of this Circuit.
AFFIRMED.
3

-- 3 of 3 --