IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-50012

MICHAEL BRUNO, as Parents/Guardians/Next Friend of R.B., a minor; 

R.B., Individually, a minor; BRITTANY BRUNO, as Parents/Guardians/Next 

Friend of R.B., a minor, 

 Plaintiffs - Appellants

v.

NORTHSIDE INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, 

 Defendant - Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 5:17-CV-1129

Before STEWART, CLEMENT, and HO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

R.B., a preschool student with autism and a speech impairment, 

transferred from a Florida public school to Northside Independent School 

District (“NISD”) in January 2016. Under his Individualized Education 

Program (“IEP”) at his previous school, R.B. attended a full-day, “mixed” 

classroom, which is a special-education classroom containing both special-

 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

December 17, 2019

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 19-50012 Document: 00515239600 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/17/2019
No. 19-50012

2

needs and non-disabled students, and received speech and occupational 

therapy each week. He also received additional services from a private Board 

Certified Behavior Analyst and occupational therapist.

Upon enrolling at NISD, the district provided him a temporary service 

plan designed to furnish R.B. with special-needs services comparable to his 

Florida IEP as required by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 

U.S.C. §§ 1400, et seq. (“IDEA”). NISD placed R.B. in a half-day program in a 

self-contained classroom—a classroom with only special-needs students. His 

speech-language therapy services and occupational therapy services remained 

the same as described in his Florida IEP.

After this initial transfer period, NISD completed a Full Individual and 

Initial Evaluation and developed a new IEP for R.B. In completing the 

evaluation and developing the new IEP, NISD consulted with R.B.’s parents 

and teachers, reviewed R.B.’s tests and evaluations from his Florida school 

district, and relied on evaluations from a speech pathologist, occupational 

therapist, and licensed specialist in school psychology. NISD determined that 

R.B. should be provided with less speech and occupational therapy than he had 

received in Florida and that his classroom should be changed from a selfcontained classroom to a mixed classroom.

On January 11, 2017, Michael and Brittany Bruno, R.B.’s parents, filed 

a request for a special education due process hearing with the Texas Education 

Agency. They alleged that NISD committed a substantive violation of the 

IDEA by denying R.B. a free appropriate public education (“FAPE”) and 

committed numerous procedural errors under the IDEA. After a three-day 

evidentiary hearing, which included testimony from fifteen witnesses and 

more than 800 pages of exhibits, the special education officer concluded that 

NISD provided R.B. with a FAPE and did not commit procedural violations of 

the IDEA. The Brunos appealed the hearing officer’s decision to the district 

 Case: 19-50012 Document: 00515239600 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/17/2019
No. 19-50012

3

court. The district court granted judgment on the administrative record to 

NISD, and the Brunos appealed to this court.

We have reviewed the briefs, the applicable law, and relevant parts of 

the record, and we have heard oral argument. The district court committed no 

reversible error. The judgment is affirmed, essentially on the basis carefully 

explained by the district court in its 41-page December 12, 2018 Order.

 Case: 19-50012 Document: 00515239600 Page: 3 Date Filed: 12/17/2019