Case ID: f-appx_653/html/0808-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM: \n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

C.C., Individually, by and through his next friends, Charles Cripps and Kristie Cripps, Plaintiff-Appellant v. HURST-EULESS-BEDFORD INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, Defendant-Appellee
    No. 15-10556
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Date Filed: 06/08/2016
    
      Martin J. CirMel, Cirkiel & Associates, P.C., Round Rock, TX, Kenneth D. Car-den, Carden Law Office, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    Meredith Prykryl Walker, Esq., Nona C. Matthews, Walsh Gallegos Trevino Russo & Kyle, P.C., Irving, TX, for Defendant-Appellee.
    Before DAVIS, JONES, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

C.C. is a student with a disability. The Hurst-Euless-Bedford Independent School District (“HEBISD”) placed C.C. in a Disciplinary Alternative Education Program (“DAEP”) after C.C. photographed another student sitting on the toilet in the restroom at school without that student’s consent.

C.C. claims that HEBISD violated the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act and other constitutional and statutory provisions when it failed to reevaluate his DAEP placement after the Tarrant County Juvenile Authority declined to prosecute him for the felony of invasive visual recording. The district court entered judgment in HEBISD’s favor, and C.C. now appeals.

After carefully reviewing the district court’s order, the parties’ arguments, the relevant case law, and all of the evidence in the record, we conclude that the district court committed no reversible error. We therefore affirm the judgment essentially for the reasons given by the district court.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cm. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. 47 g 4
     
      
      . HEBISD determined that C.C.’s acts of illicit photography were not a manifestation of his disability, and C.C. does not challenge that determination on appeal,
     
      
      . a^so a®rm the district court s order denying C.C.'s motion to conduct discovery, as well as the court's order denying C.C.’s motion to remand the case to the Texas Education Agency for a rehearing.