T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by 9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

P ursuantt o 2 8 U . S . C . § 6 36 (c )( 1), the part i es agre ed t o p roce ed ** before am agi stra t e j ud ge.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on *** w i tho utoral ar gu m ent . S ee F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). 09- 35171 NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T C H E R Y L B L A N C H A R D ; e t a l., P l ai n t i ffs - A p p el l an t s, v. M O R T O N S C H O O L D I S T R I C T ; e t a l., D efen d an t s - A p p el l ees. N o. 09- 35171 D. C . No . 3 : 0 6 - c v - 0 5 1 6 6 - J KA ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe W e s t e rn D i s tr i c tof W a s hi ngt on J . K e l l e y A rnol d, M a gi s tr a t e Judge , P r e s i di ng **

S ubm i tt e d M a y25, 2010 ** * B efo re: C A N B Y , T H O M A S , an d W . F L E T C H E R , C i rcu i tJu d g es. T he B l anchards app ea l pro se f rom the di stri ctcourt ’ s orderaf fi rm i ng an adm i ni stra t i ve deci si on un der the Indi vi du al s w i th D i sabi l i t i es E du ca t i on A ct 

# FI LED JU N 22 2010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS09- 35171 2 ( “ I D E A ” ) , a nd gr a nt i ng s um m a ryj udgm e nton the i rc l a i m s unde rthe A m e r i c a ns w i th D i s abi l i t i e s A c t( “ A D A ” ) a nd the R e habi l i t a t i on A c t( “ R A ” ) . W e ha ve ju risd icti o n u n d er2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 . W e r ev iew fo r c learerro r th e d istrict co u rt’s fi nd i ng s of f

ac tand w e r evi ew de no vo i t s l egal concl usi on s and sum m ary ju d g m e n t. V

an D uy n ex r e l. V

an D uy n v . B ake rSc h. D is t. 5J , 502 F . 3d 811, 818 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 7 ) ( f

in d in g s o f

f a c t a n d le g a l c o n c lu s io n s ) ; P ay ne v . P e ni ns ula Sc h. D ist . , 5 9 8 F. 3 d 1 1 2 3 , 1 1 2 6 ( 9 th Ci r . 2 0 1 0 ) ( s u mma ryj u d g me n t ) . W e a f f i rm. B as ed on the evi dence i n the re cord, the di stri ctcourtprop er l y c on cl ud ed th a t th e s c h o o l d is tr ic t p r o v id e d th e B la n c h a r d s ’ s o n w ith af r e e ap p r o p r ia te p u b lic e d u c a tio n u n d e rth e I D E A . See V an D uyn , 502 F . 3d a t823- 25 ( no vi ol a t i on of the ID E A w here sc ho ol di stri ctm at er i al l y i m pl em ent ed the i nd i vi du al i ze d edu ca t i on al prog ra m and p l ai nt i ff

fa i l ed t o p roff

erevi dence t o the contrary ). T he di s tr i c tc ourtpr ope r l y gr a nt e d s um m a ryj udgm e ntf orde f e nda nt s on the B la n c h a r d s ’ A D A a n d R A c la im s b e c au s e th e yf a ile d to r a is e atr iab le is s u e a s to w h e th e ro rn o t th e d e f

e n d a n ts w e r e d e lib e r a te lyin d if f e r e n t to th e ird is ab le d s o n . Se e D u v a ll v . C ount

yof Ki t s ap , 260 F . 3d 1124, 1139 ( 9th C i r . 2001) ( c l a i m s f or m on et ary r el i ef

un der the A D A and the R A re qu i re pl ai nt i ff t o est abl i sh i nt ent i on al di sc ri m i nat i on base d o n d el i bera t e i nd i ff er ence ).09- 35171 3 T hi s c ou rtprevi ou sl y a ff i rm ed the di sm i ss al of the B l anchards’ cl ai m s und er 4 2 U .S .C . § § 1 9 8 3 a n d 1 9 8 5 , a n d w e d e c lin e to r e c o n s id e rth o s e c la im s h e r e . See L es l i e Sal t

C o. v. U ni ted Stat es , 55 F . 3d 1388, 1392 ( 9th C i r . 1995) ( “ U nde rl a w of the ca se do ctri ne, [] on e panel of an appel l at e c ou rtw i l l no tre consi der m att er s re sol ved i n a pri or appeal t o ano ther panel i n the sa m e c as e. ”) . AF F I RME D.