Case ID: f-appx_112/html/0507-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "BATCHELDER, Circuit Judge.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Danny W. NOBLE; Cynthia L. Noble, as legal guardians of Carrie L. Noble, a developmentally disabled individual, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. BRANCH INTERMEDIATE SCHOOL DISTRICT; Branch Intermediate School District, Board of Education; Robert Montgomery, individually, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 02-2505.
    United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
    Oct. 22, 2004.
    Martha J. Widdows-Witham, George T. Perrett, Vandervoort, Christ, & Fisher, Battle Creek, MI, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.
    William Vogelzang, Jr., Mark T. Ostrowski, Kluczynski, Girtz & Vogelzang, Grand Rapids, MI, for Defendant-Appellee.
    Before SUHRHEINRICH and BATCHELDER, Circuit Judges; and RICE, District Judge.
    
      
      The Honorable Water Herbert Rice, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Ohio, sitting by designation.
    
   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 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.