The opinion of the court was delivered by: Seybert, District Judge:
Pending before the Court are Plaintiff Elizabeth Rekowicz's Objections to Magistrate Judge E. Thomas Boyle's Report and Recommendation ("R&R") recommending that the Court grant in part and deny in part Plaintiff's motion to amend her Complaint. Defendant Sachem Central School District opposes Plaintiff's motion to amend. For the following reasons, Judge Boyle's R&R is ADOPTED IN PART in accordance with the following discussion.
The R&R provides a discussion of the allegations in Plaintiff's Proposed Amended Complaint (the "PAC"). Briefly, Plaintiff proposes to add (1) Plaintiff's son, Steven Congemi, as a plaintiff in the case; (2) claims under the IDEA, the ADA, the Rehabilitation Act, and Section 1983 against eleven individual defendants in their official and individual capacities (see R&R 5), and (3) a Section 1983 claim against the District. In addition to addressing these proposed additions, Judge Boyle considered the futility vel non of Plaintiff's IDEA, ADA, and Rehabilitation Act claims against the District. Judge Boyle concluded that all but two of Plaintiff's proposed amendments would be futile and he recommended that the motion to amend be denied except insofar as Plaintiff seeks to add (1) her son as a named plaintiff and (2) a Section 1983 claim against James Nolan. (R&R 18.)
Plaintiff challenges the R&R on the following grounds: she argues that (1) she pled the personal involvement of the individual defendants with sufficient plausibility to state Section 1983 claims against them (Pl. Br. 4); (2) Judge Boyle erred in rejecting her Section 1983 claim against the District (id. at 8-9); (3) her official-capacity claims against the proposed individual defendants were improperly rejected (id. at 10-11); and (4) she sufficiently stated ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims against all proposed defendants. She also (5) clarifies that is seeking damages for IDEA violations under Section 1983, not the IDEA itself.
A magistrate judge's recommendations on nondispositive issues may be set aside only to the extent that they are "clearly erroneous" or "contrary to law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a).*fn1
The Court agrees with Judge Boyle that, except for
proposed defendant James Nolan, Plaintiff has not provided anything beyond conclusory allegations of the individuals' personal involvement in any Section 1983 violations. (See R&R 8-10.) In her Objections, Plaintiff simply cites to the paragraphs in the PAC that Judge Boyle already concluded were insufficiently detailed without offering any argument (beyond restating the Iqbal/Twombly pleading standard) why Judge Boyle reached the wrong conclusion. (Pl. Br. 5-7.)
As to James Nolan, it appears that Plaintiff's Section 1983 claim is predicated on his decision to truncate Plaintiff's son's daily school schedule. This allegation goes to whether school officials deprived Plaintiff's son of a free appropriate public education ("FAPE")--i.e., whether the District violated the IDEA. Because plaintiffs cannot use Section 1983 to obtain damages for IDEA violations absent allegations that they were denied IDEA's "procedural safeguards or administrative remedies," Streck v. Bd. of Educ. of E. Greenbush Sch. Dist., 280 F. App'x 66, 68 (2d Cir. 2008); Schafer v. Hicksville Union Free Sch. Dist., No. 06--CV--2531, 2011 WL 1322903, at *18 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2011); French v. N.Y.S. Dep't of Educ. ["French I"], No. 04-CV-0434, 2010 WL 3909163, at *11 (N.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2010) aff'd, --- F. App'x ----, 2011 WL 5222856 (2d Cir. Nov 3, 2011) ["French II"], Plaintiff's Section 1983 claim against Nolan is futile.
Accordingly, the Court adopts in part the R&R as it relates to Plaintiff's proposed Section 1983 claims against the proposed individual defendants. The Court agrees that Plaintiff has not stated Section 1983 claims against ten of the eleven individuals, and it further concludes that she has not stated a Section 1983 claim against Nolan either.
Judge Boyle also rejected Plaintiff's attempt to add a Section 1983 claim against the District, finding that Plaintiff had not adequately alleged an unlawful custom or policy. (R&R 11.) In doing so, Judge Boyle recognized that (a) Nolan, Plaintiff's son's principal, is alleged to have authorized Plaintiff's son's truncated schedule and (b) school principals have been considered policymakers for the purposes of establishing municipal liability under Section 1983. (R&R 12-13 & 12 n.11.) He reasoned, however, that allegations of a single, isolated decision from a policymaker are insufficient to state a claim against the District. (Id. at 13.) This rationale conflates the ways that a plaintiff can establish liability under Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 98 S. Ct. 2018, 56 L. Ed. 2d 611 (1978); a ...