C v. Ysleta Indep Sch

1 Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined
that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent
except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.
R. 47.5.4.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-50277
Summary Calendar
ORLANDO C., by next friend Eva C.,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
YSLETA INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT,
Defendant-Appellee.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. EP-00-CV-172-DB
--------------------
October 24, 2001
Before DUHÉ, BARKSDALE, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:1
Orlando C. (Orlando) appeals the district court’s grant of
summary judgment in favor of the Ysleta Independent School District
(YISD) in the instant suit brought under the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Orlando filed suit in the
district court after a hearing officer, in proceedings before the
Texas Education Agency, dismissed as unripe claims that the YISD
failed to provide certain IDEA procedural safeguards in connection
with a disciplinary incident.

-- 1 of 2 --

In granting summary judgment in favor of the YISD below, the
district court likewise determined that the claims were unripe,
concluding that the claims were contingent on the occurrence of a
“change of placement,” or 10-day removal from school, which had not
taken place at the time Orlando’s administrative complaint was
filed. See Texas v. United States, 523 U.S. 296, 300 (1998)
(stating that claims are not ripe for adjudication if they rest
upon contingent future events that may not occur as expected or
that may not occur at all). We need not address the correctness of
the district court’s “change of placement” analysis because Orlando
has not argued in his principal brief how it was incorrect. See
Cinel v. Connick, 15 F.3d 1338, 1345 (5th Cir. 1994); Brinkmann v.
Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir.
1987). Orlando has failed to point to any reversible error in the
district court’s legal analysis. Accordingly, the district court’s
judgment is AFFIRMED. See Brinkmann, 813 F.2d at 748.

-- 2 of 2 --