Danny W. Noble v. United States District Court, Western District Branch Intermediate School of…

*The Honorable Water Herbert Rice, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Ohio, sitting
by designation.
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
File Name: 04a0040n.06
Filed: October 22, 2004
Case No. 02-2505
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
DANNY W. NOBLE; CYNTHIA )
L. NOBLE, as legal guardians )
of Carrie L. Noble, )
a developmentally disabled individual, )
)
Plaintiffs-Appellants, )
) ON APPEAL FROM THE
v. ) UNITED STATES DISTRICT
) COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT
BRANCH INTERMEDIATE SCHOOL ) OF MICHIGAN
DISTRICT; BRANCH INTERMEDIATE )
SCHOOL DISTRICT, BOARD OF )
EDUCATION; ROBERT MONTGOMERY, )
individually, )
)
Defendants-Appellees. )
)
__________________________________________)
BEFORE: SUHRHEINRICH and BATCHELDER, Circuit Judges; RICE*
, District Judge.
ALICE M. BATCHELDER, Circuit Judge. Plaintiffs appeal the orders of the district
court granting summary judgment to the defendants Branch Intermediate School District and Branch
Intermediate School District Board of Education on plaintiffs’ claim under Title IX of the Education
Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. §§ 1681-1688 and dismissing without prejudice plaintiffs’ state law
claims; and denying plaintiffs’ Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion for reconsideration and to amend the
judgment. Plaintiffs’ claims all arise from a sexual assault on Carrie Noble, a developmentally

-- 1 of 2 --

2
disabled minor, while she and her attacker were students at a school for the developmentally
disabled operated by the defendant school district. The district court held that the record did not
contain evidence to support a jury verdict on any of the elements necessary to establish school
district liability under Title IX.
Having had the benefit of oral argument, and having carefully considered the record on
appeal, the briefs of the parties and the applicable law, we conclude that the district court’s opinion
granting summary judgment and its memorandum opinion denying reconsideration thoroughly and
accurately set out both the undisputed facts and the governing law. Because the issuance of a full
opinion would serve no jurisprudential purpose and would be duplicative, we AFFIRM on the basis
of the district court’s well-reasoned opinions both the order granting summary judgment and
dismissing without prejudice the state law claims and the order denying reconsideration.

-- 2 of 2 --