PUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-1247

G.M., a minor, by his parents and next friends, E.P. and G.R.M.; E.P.,

Plaintiffs – Appellants,

and

G.R.M.,

Plaintiff,

v.

WILLIAM J. BARNES; HOWARD COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION,

Defendants – Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. 

James K. Bredar, Senior District Judge. (1:20-cv-00791-JKB)

Argued: January 23, 2024 Decided: September 4, 2024

Before WILKINSON, QUATTLEBAUM, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by published opinion. Judge Rushing wrote the opinion, in which Judge 

Wilkinson and Judge Quattlebaum joined.

E.P., Appellant Pro Se. Andrew Wayne Nussbaum, NUSSBAUM LAW, LLC, Clarksville, 

Maryland, for Appellees

USCA4 Appeal: 21-1247 Doc: 63 Filed: 09/04/2024 Pg: 1 of 30
2

RUSHING, Circuit Judge:

G.M.’s parents wanted their son, a second-grade student with dyslexia and attentiondeficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), to receive special education under the Individuals 

with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 84 Stat. 175, as amended, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq. 

Howard County Public Schools (HCPS) determined G.M. was ineligible for special 

education under the statute. Pursuant to the IDEA’s dispute resolution process, G.M.’s 

parents fought that determination before a state administrative law judge. When the 

administrative law judge sided with HCPS, G.M.’s parents sued in federal district court. 

And when the district court agreed with the administrative law judge, G.M.’s parents 

appealed to this Court. On appeal, G.M.’s parents argue that HCPS substantively violated 

the IDEA by failing to provide G.M. with needed special education. They also argue that 

HCPS procedurally violated the IDEA by withholding relevant information during the 

eligibility-determination process. After carefully considering the record, we affirm the 

judgment of the district court. 

I.

A. 

Congress enacted the IDEA to ensure “that children with disabilities receive needed 

special education services.” Fry v. Napoleon Cmty. Schs., 137 S. Ct. 743, 748 (2017). The 

IDEA requires that States, in return for federal funding, guarantee certain children with 

physical and intellectual disabilities a “‘free appropriate public education’” (FAPE). 

Bouabid v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schs. Bd. of Educ., 62 F.4th 851, 856 (4th Cir. 2023)

(quoting 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(1)(A)). For most children, a FAPE entails an education 

USCA4 Appeal: 21-1247 Doc: 63 Filed: 09/04/2024 Pg: 2 of 30
3

“reasonably calculated to enable the child to achieve passing marks and advance from 

grade to grade.” Endrew F. ex rel. Joseph F. v. Douglas Cnty. Sch. Dist. RE-1, 137 S. Ct. 

988, 999 (2017) (internal quotation marks omitted). Where general education is sufficient 

to provide such an education, the IDEA is satisfied and no relief is required. See Miller v. 

Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schs. Bd. of Educ., 64 F.4th 569, 575 (4th Cir. 2023). Where it is 

insufficient, the IDEA requires schools to work with parents to furnish “special education 

and related services” enabling the child to receive a FAPE. 20 U.S.C. § 1401(3)(A), (9); 

see also id. §§ 1412, 1414. In addition to this substantive right, the IDEA guarantees 

certain procedural rights, including the rights of parents to “examine all records” relating 

to their child and to “participate in meetings” regarding the identification, evaluation, and 

placement of their child. Id. § 1415(b); see also R.F. ex rel. E.F. v. Cecil Cnty. Pub. Schs., 

919 F.3d 237, 248 (4th Cir. 2019). 

The IDEA envisions a “cooperative process” between parents and educators, who 

are expected to work together to determine whether the child has a disability, whether that 

disability requires special education, and what any special education should look like. 

Schaffer ex rel. Schaffer v. Weast, 546 U.S. 49, 53 (2005). But the IDEA anticipates that 

“parents and educators will not always agree.” Bouabid, 62 F.4th at 856. To resolve those 

disagreements, the IDEA directs parents to seek a “due process hearing” in the appropriate

state administrative forum. 20 U.S.C. § 1415(f). “There, an impartial hearing officer 

determines ‘whether the child received a free appropriate public education’ and orders 

appropriate relief as necessary.” Sanchez v. Arlington Cnty. Sch. Bd., 58 F.4th 130, 133 

(4th Cir. 2023) (quoting 20 U.S.C § 1415(f)(3)(E)(i)). 

USCA4 Appeal: 21-1247 Doc: 63 Filed: 09/04/2024 Pg: 3 of 30
4

Once those state procedures are exhausted, the IDEA authorizes any party aggrieved 

by the hearing officer’s determination to file a civil suit in federal court. 20 U.S.C. 

§ 1415(i)(2)(A). As a lower federal court, the district court cannot affirm, reverse, vacate, 

or remand the state hearing officer’s decision. Johnson v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schs. 

Bd. of Educ., 20 F.4th 835, 845–846 (4th Cir. 2021). Instead, the district court conducts 

an independent review, deferring to the hearing officer’s “regularly made” factual findings 

and ordering substantive or procedural relief as necessary. Doyle v. Arlington Cnty. Sch. 

Bd., 953 F.2d 100, 105 (4th Cir. 1991). Then, like other final decisions, the parties may 

appeal the district court’s judgment to this Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1291. 

B.

With that background established, we turn to the facts of this case. At the beginning 

of second grade, G.M.’s parents noticed a steep decline in G.M.’s standardized test scores 

compared to the previous year. Though the new scores were within the average range for 

students his age, G.M.’s parents grew concerned their son was suffering the adverse effects 

of a disability affecting his reading and writing. They contacted HCPS about special 

education under the IDEA.

HCPS convened an individualized education program (IEP) team, consisting of 

G.M.’s parents and school personnel, to assess G.M.’s eligibility for special education. In 

a series of IEP meetings over the course of the school year, G.M.’s parents and HCPS went 

back and forth over G.M.’s eligibility. G.M.’s parents secured private evaluations of their 

son, which tended to suggest deficiencies in reading and writing. HCPS conducted its own 

evaluations, which tended to suggest average performance in these areas. 

USCA4 Appeal: 21-1247 Doc: 63 Filed: 09/04/2024 Pg: 4 of 30
5

At a standstill, HCPS concluded that G.M. was ineligible for special education under 

the IDEA because of his purportedly average performance. In response, G.M.’s parents 

removed their son from HCPS at the end of second grade and enrolled him for third grade 

at the Jemicy School, a private school for children with speech and language disabilities. 

G.M.’s parents later filed a due process complaint against HCPS. They alleged the 

school system had denied G.M. a FAPE by erroneously finding him ineligible for special 

education and sought reimbursement for G.M.’s Jemicy tuition and related relief. Pursuant 

to the IDEA’s dispute resolution procedures, the complaint came before a Maryland 

administrative law judge (ALJ). The ALJ held a six-day hearing during which both sides 

presented evidence, witnesses, and arguments. 

The data presented to the ALJ can be grouped into four categories. First, there were 

the evaluations secured by G.M.’s parents. At their request, Dr. Julie Morrison performed 

a psychological assessment of G.M., finding that he had dyslexia, dysgraphia, and related 

weaknesses in phonological awareness and other areas, though her findings on ADHD were 

inconclusive. G.M.’s parents also secured a private evaluation from Deena Seifert, a 

certified speech-language pathologist. Ms. Seifert found that G.M. had above average 

scores in listening and grammar; average scores in organizing, semantics, and spoken 

language; and a low average score in speaking. She also noted specific weaknesses in 

certain areas, such as oral vocabulary and word retrieval.

Second, there were the assessments and evaluations associated with HCPS. During 

his first- and second-grade years, G.M. took the Measures of Academic Progress (MAP) 

test, a standardized test that measures achievement relative to peers. G.M.’s second-grade

USCA4 Appeal: 21-1247 Doc: 63 Filed: 09/04/2024 Pg: 5 of 30
6

scores indicated “average” achievement in reading and mathematics compared to peers, 

though his second-grade scores were lower than his first-grade scores. J.A. 1597. HCPS 

personnel also conducted their own evaluations. Michele Redmiles, an HCPS special 

education resource teacher, administered the Woodcock-Johnson IV test to measure 

G.M.’s achievement relative to students his age. That test indicated “average” achievement 

in reading and writing, “high average” achievement in mathematics, J.A. 546–548, and 

“average” achievement across a variety of subtest areas, including reading rate, reading 

fluency, reading vocabulary, basic writing skills, written expression, spelling, and sentence 

writing fluency, J.A. 550–553. Around the same time, Mary Nalepa, an HCPS school 

psychologist, observed G.M. in the classroom and administered two tests to measure his 

phonological awareness, an area of concern identified by Dr. Morrison. Those tests 

indicated that G.M.’s phonological awareness was average to low average and that his 

phonological memory was average. Mrs. Nalepa also tested for ADHD, finding elevated 

levels of impulsivity and inattention, consistent with her observations of G.M.’s classroom 

behavior. Mrs. Nalepa reported that G.M. had a phonological processing deficit and 

ADHD. 

Third, there were the observations and assessments of G.M.’s second-grade reading 

and writing teacher, Rachael Clark. Ms. Clark had expressed concerns about G.M.’s 

reading and writing throughout the school year. She indicated, at the beginning of the year, 

that G.M. was “[w]orking towards curriculum standard[s]” in reading and writing, J.A. 

413, and indicated, toward the end of the year, that G.M. was still “working towards 

curriculum standards” in writing, J.A. 549. She told the IEP team that she believed G.M. 

USCA4 Appeal: 21-1247 Doc: 63 Filed: 09/04/2024 Pg: 6 of 30
7

had a “weakness” in written expression. J.A. 581. And she noted that G.M. often failed to 

turn in completed assignments, making it “difficult to fully assess” his abilities. J.A. 744. 

By the end of the year, however, Ms. Clark’s final report card showed G.M. was

“independent[ly] or with assistance meeting all of the criteria that are listed” for second 

grade, including for reading and writing.1

 J.A. 1442. Her Fountas & Pinnell (F&P) 

assessment of G.M., which informally tracks reading rate, accuracy, and comprehension, 

had G.M. ending the school year reading a grade-level Level M text at 62 words per minute. 

And her informal phonological awareness evaluation of G.M. showed him performing 

well, scoring between eighty and one hundred percent on every metric. 

Finally, there were G.M.’s experiences with the Orton-Gillingham methodology, a 

“structured, multi-sensory approach to teaching language” that has proven effective for 

teaching children with dyslexia and dysgraphia. J.A. 272. Halfway through his secondgrade year at HCPS, G.M.’s parents hired a private tutor trained in Orton-Gillingham. The 

tutor reported that G.M. made progress during their time together, increasing his reading 

rate to 80 words per minute by the end of second grade. The tutor noted, however, that 

because she “worked with [G.M.] at the same time the school did, it [was] difficult to tease 

out exactly which gains he made from the tutoring, and which from school.” J.A. 795. 

And G.M.’s report cards and assessments from Jemicy, where Orton-Gillingham is 

1 G.M.’s HCPS report card listed three codes for evaluating student performance: “I 

– Independent,” “W – With Assistance,” and “N – Not Yet Apparent.” J.A. 743. G.M. 

received a mix of “I” and “W” codes and no “N” codes. “W” meant that G.M. was able to 

satisfy the criteria but needed prompting, redirection, and reminders to do so. 

USCA4 Appeal: 21-1247 Doc: 63 Filed: 09/04/2024 Pg: 7 of 30
8

“embedded in every subject area,” indicated that he was making progress but continued to 

struggle with reading, writing, and behavioral control. J.A. 272. 

In addition to this data, the ALJ heard testimony from witnesses on both sides. For

G.M., there was his mother, E.P.; Dr. Vincent Culotta, an expert in neuropsychology; Lisa 

Taylor, an expert in special education with an emphasis in reading; and Erin Gittings, an 

expert in special education as practiced at Jemicy. E.P. testified that G.M.’s reading and 

writing were “laborious” and that he suffered emotional distress from his inability to keep 

up at school. J.A. 1730, 1753. Dr. Culotta and Ms. Taylor testified that G.M. was not 

achieving adequately at HCPS and that he needed special education in the form of OrtonGillingham instruction, criticizing the contrary findings of Mrs. Redmiles and Mrs. Nalepa. 

Dr. Culotta met with G.M. for an hour or so before his testimony; Ms. Taylor never met 

G.M. Both relied on Dr. Morrison’s report and neither administered an evaluation of G.M. 

themselves. Lastly, Ms. Gittings testified about special education at Jemicy and noted that 

the school does not require its instructors to be state-certified special educators.

For HCPS, the ALJ heard from Ms. Clark, an expert in general education; Mrs. 

Redmiles, an expert in special education; Mrs. Nalepa, an expert in school psychology; and 

three others associated with HCPS. Ms. Clark testified that G.M.’s reading ability placed 

him “in the middle” of the class, J.A. 1461, that writing was his “weakest area[,] and [that] 

overall he was not meeting” the curriculum standards in writing, J.A. 1477. Mrs. Redmiles 

and Mrs. Nalepa testified about the assessments they administered and about G.M.’s

average performance on them, while defending their methodologies from the criticism of 

G.M.’s experts. 

USCA4 Appeal: 21-1247 Doc: 63 Filed: 09/04/2024 Pg: 8 of 30
9

Following the hearing, the ALJ issued a fifty-four-page written decision agreeing

with HCPS. Weighing the evidence, the ALJ found that G.M. presented a “very average 

picture of achievement across all areas.” J.A. 287. The ALJ explained that the data showed 

G.M. performing averagely for a second-grade student and that she found the HCPS 

witnesses more compelling for a variety of reasons. “On the issue of achievement,” the 

ALJ found the “expert testimony more persuasive than [G.M.’s] mother’s testimony”

because E.P., while “very knowledgeable about her son,” was “not an educator.” J.A. 282. 

The ALJ then explained that while she found all the expert testimony “helpful,” J.A. 283, 

she considered the HCPS experts more persuasive because their testimony was often rooted 

in “direct knowledge” of G.M., J.A. 282. Dr. Culotta and Ms. Taylor (and Ms. Gittings) 

had little to no direct knowledge of G.M. By contrast, Ms. Clark had observed G.M. daily, 

and Mrs. Redmiles and Mrs. Nalepa “not only interpreted the test results, [but also] 

conducted assessments and observations of [G.M.].” J.A. 283. And unlike Dr. Morrison, 

who did not testify, Mrs. Redmiles and Mrs. Nalepa “were able to discuss their conclusions 

at the hearing.” J.A. 283. The ALJ therefore assigned “greater weight” to Mrs. Redmiles’s

and Mrs. Nalepa’s findings than to those of Dr. Culotta, Ms. Taylor, or Dr. Morrison. J.A. 

283. The ALJ found that G.M. was an average student. 

Turning to the statute, the ALJ determined that G.M. did not qualify as a “child with 

a disability” under the IDEA. 20 U.S.C. § 1401(3)(A). To qualify, G.M. had to 

demonstrate that he had a qualifying disability and “by reason thereof” needed special 

education and related services. Id. G.M.’s parents argued their son had two qualifying 

disabilities: a “specific learning disability” (SLD) arising from his dyslexia and dysgraphia, 

USCA4 Appeal: 21-1247 Doc: 63 Filed: 09/04/2024 Pg: 9 of 30
10

and an “other health impairment” (OHI) arising from his ADHD. See id. § 1401(3)(A)(i). 

The ALJ concluded that G.M. did not have an SLD because he failed to exhibit the requisite 

“pattern of [academic] strengths and weaknesses” relative to age or state-approved gradelevel standards. Md. Code Regs. 13A.05.01.06(D)(3); 34 C.F.R. § 300.309(a). The ALJ

found that G.M. did have an OHI but concluded that G.M. did not, “by reason thereof,”

need special education because he was performing adequately relative to grade-level 

standards. 20 U.S.C. § 1401(3)(A)(ii). Alternatively, the ALJ held that even if G.M. 

needed Orton-Gillingham, that methodology was not “special education” because it “can 

be used to teach children who are not dyslexic” in the context of general education. J.A. 

294. The ALJ dismissed the complaint and denied the request for tuition reimbursement. 

G.M.’s parents then filed this action in federal court. See G.M. v. Martirano, No. 

CV JKB-20-0791, 2021 WL 409856, at *1 (D. Md. Feb. 5, 2021). Applying our precedent, 

the district court concluded that the ALJ’s factual findings were “regularly made” and 

deferred to them. Id. at *5. With that deference established, the district court concluded 

that G.M.’s parents could not show they were entitled to substantive relief under the IDEA. 

Id. at *6–7. The district court entered judgment for HCPS, and this appeal followed.2

2 The district court granted “summary judgment” to HCPS. See G.M., 2021 WL 

409856, at *7. “Although a district court’s review of IDEA administrative proceedings is 

typically conducted on motions for summary judgment, this is a procedural misnomer. 

More precisely, the IDEA requires that a reviewing court (1) receive the record of the 

administrative proceeding, (2) hear additional evidence at the request of a party, and 

(3) base its decision on the preponderance of the evidence.” E.L. ex rel. Lorsson v. Chapel 

Hill-Carrboro Bd. of Educ., 773 F.3d 509, 516–517 (4th Cir. 2014) (emphasis omitted)

(citing 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(2)(C)). 

USCA4 Appeal: 21-1247 Doc: 63 Filed: 09/04/2024 Pg: 10 of 30
11

II.

A.

We conduct a modified de novo review in IDEA cases, applying the same standards 

as the district court and affording “due weight” to the state administrative proceedings. 

MM ex rel. DM v. Sch. Dist. of Greenville Cnty., 303 F.3d 523, 530–531 (4th Cir. 2002)

(internal quotation marks omitted).

3 To afford “due weight,” we treat the state hearing 

officer’s factual findings and credibility determinations as “prima facie correct, akin to the 

traditional sense of permitting a result to be based on such fact-finding,” so long as the

findings were “regularly made.” Doyle, 953 F.2d at 105. 

When assessing whether findings were regularly made, our Court focuses on the 

“‘process through which the findings were made,’” not the results of that process. Bouabid, 

62 F.4th at 857 (quoting J.P. ex rel. Peterson v. Cnty. Sch. Bd. of Hanover Cnty., 516 F.3d 

254, 259 (4th Cir. 2008)). Focusing on process, our Court has held that findings are 

regularly made if the hearing officer “conducted a proper hearing, allowing the parents and 

the School Board to present evidence and make arguments, and the hearing officer by all 

indications resolved the factual questions in the normal way, without flipping a coin, 

throwing a dart, or otherwise abdicating his responsibility to decide the case.” J.P., 516 

3 The statute requires district courts to “receive the records of the administrative 

proceedings” and “hear additional evidence at the request of a party.” 20 U.S.C. 

§ 1415(i)(2)(C). Where a district court does not rely solely on “factual recitations” from 

the administrative record but instead hears and makes findings based on “additional 

evidence,” we review those findings for clear error. MM, 303 F.3d at 531. “Because the 

parties here did not present additional evidence to the district court, this broader standard 

of review is not implicated.” E.L., 773 F.3d at 517 n.4.

USCA4 Appeal: 21-1247 Doc: 63 Filed: 09/04/2024 Pg: 11 of 30
12

F.3d at 259. If the hearing officer employs a process that is not “far from the accepted 

norm of a fact-finding process,” id. (internal quotation marks omitted), we can rely on her

findings when making our independent decision based on a “preponderance of the 

evidence,” 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(2)(C)(iii). See also Bouabid, 62 F.4th at 857. And if we

depart from the hearing officer’s findings, we must “explain why.” Doyle, 953 F.2d at 105; 

see also Cnty. Sch. Bd. of Henrico Cnty. v. Z.P. ex rel. R.P., 399 F.3d 298, 306 (4th Cir. 

2005) (noting that courts must “explain [their] reasons for rejecting the findings of the 

hearing officer”).

Finally, and regardless of whether we rely on the ALJ’s findings, the party seeking 

relief under the IDEA bears the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence. O.S. 

v. Fairfax Cnty. Sch. Bd., 804 F.3d 354, 360 (4th Cir. 2015) (citing Schaffer, 546 U.S. at

51), abrogated on other grounds by Endrew F., 137 S. Ct. 988, as recognized by R.F., 919 

F.3d 237. When assessing whether that burden has been met, we are not entitled to

“substitute [our] own notions of sound educational policy for those of local school 

authorities.” Hartmann ex rel. Hartmann v. Loudoun Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 118 F.3d 996, 

999 (4th Cir. 1997). To the contrary, we remain mindful that the “IDEA requires great 

deference to the views of the school system rather than [to] those of even the most wellmeaning parent.” A.B. ex rel. D.B. v. Lawson, 354 F.3d 315, 328 (4th Cir. 2004). 

B.

The ALJ’s factual findings and credibility determinations were regularly made. The 

ALJ conducted a six-day hearing during which both sides were allowed to present evidence 

and arguments. Following that hearing, the ALJ issued a written decision explaining her 

USCA4 Appeal: 21-1247 Doc: 63 Filed: 09/04/2024 Pg: 12 of 30
13

determination. This process was well within the accepted norm of a fact-finding process, 

so the ALJ’s findings are prima facie correct and can be relied upon when conducting our 

own independent review. See J.P., 516 F.3d at 259; Doyle, 953 F.2d at 105. 

G.M.’s arguments run up against the standard we have previously identified. G.M.’s

overarching contention is that the “ALJ’s factual findings and credibility determinations 

are inconsistent with the evidence and thus, not regularly made.” Opening Br. 22–23. This

argument is virtually always bound to fail because it imports a merits conclusion into what 

is supposed to be a procedural inquiry. See Bouabid, 62 F.4th at 857. We cannot know 

what is inconsistent with the evidence until we consider the merits and figure out whose 

interpretation of the evidence is correct. And that substantive inquiry would defeat the 

point of focusing on procedure, namely, to accord proper deference to the “original finder 

of fact” in this necessarily “fact-intensive” class of cases. T.B., Jr. ex rel. T.B., Sr. v. Prince 

George’s Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 897 F.3d 566, 574–575 (4th Cir. 2018) (internal quotation 

marks omitted). We thus reject G.M.’s attempt to merge this procedural inquiry with the 

merits.4

 

G.M. next argues the ALJ’s factual findings were not regularly made because the

written decision “did not consider” the testimony of one of his witnesses, Ms. Gittings. 

4 For this reason, G.M.’s argument that the ALJ’s credibility determinations about 

Mrs. Redmiles and Mrs. Nalepa were irregularly made fails. Relying on his experts, G.M. 

argues that Mrs. Redmiles and Mrs. Nalepa each used “flawed methodolog[ies]” in their 

assessments of G.M. Opening Br. 27. But that argument boils down to a disagreement 

between the parties’ experts over how best to collect and interpret data. The substantive 

question of which set of experts was right does not implicate the procedural question of 

whether the credibility determinations were regularly made.

USCA4 Appeal: 21-1247 Doc: 63 Filed: 09/04/2024 Pg: 13 of 30
14

Opening Br. 22. The ALJ summarized Ms. Gittings’s testimony in a paragraph. That

shows she considered it. See J.P., 516 F.3d at 262. 

Even if the written decision had not referenced Ms. Gittings’s testimony, we would 

not infer that the ALJ failed to consider it. Hearing officers are not required to address 

every data point in the record for their findings to be regularly made. See id. (explaining 

that the “level of detail required of a hearing officer is relatively low”). Indeed, this Court 

has treated findings as regularly made even for decisions that were “about as bare-boned 

as they could be.” Id. (deferring to written decision that provided “no explanation of which 

evidence the hearing officer found to be most important or why the hearing officer was 

persuaded by the School Board’s evidence”). Under our precedent, a “bare-boned” written 

decision “does not provide a basis for concluding that the factual findings contained in a 

statutorily compliant written opinion were not regularly made and therefore not entitled to 

deference.” Id. 

G.M. also argues that the ALJ’s credibility determinations were not regularly made 

because his experts were better credentialed and more credible than HCPS’s. “Credibility 

determinations run the gamut,” however, and state hearing officers are not required to use 

any particular metric when assessing credibility. Bouabid, 62 F.4th at 859 (explaining that 

hearing officers “may assess credibility based simply upon an intuitive impression of 

candor”). Moreover, hearing officers are not required to provide an explanation for 

“accepting the testimony of one witness over that of another.” Z.P., 399 F.3d at 306–307

(noting that “credibility determinations implicit in a hearing officer’s decision are as 

USCA4 Appeal: 21-1247 Doc: 63 Filed: 09/04/2024 Pg: 14 of 30
15

entitled to deference under Doyle as explicit findings”). That the ALJ did provide an 

explanation simply confirms that her credibility determinations were regularly made.5

 

Lastly, G.M. argues the ALJ’s factual findings and credibility determinations were 

not regularly made because the written decision “entirely disregarded” G.M.’s mother’s 

testimony. Opening Br. 22. G.M. stresses that his mother was a “member of the IEP team” 

and that the IEP process is informed by “the input of the child’s parents.” Opening Br. 22 

(internal quotation marks omitted). The right of parents to participate in the IEP eligibility 

process does not mean that hearing officers are required to credit parent testimony. Hearing 

officers may discount any witness’s testimony, so long as their reasons for doing so are not

arbitrary. See J.P., 516 F.3d at 259–261.

And, further, the ALJ did not “entirely disregard” E.P.’s testimony. The ALJ 

explained that on “the issue of achievement,” she found E.P.’s testimony less “persuasive” 

than that of the professional educators, even though E.P. was “very knowledgeable about 

5 G.M. directs our attention to the ALJ’s apparent misstatement that “[m]ost of the 

[HCPS] witnesses had daily contact with the Student,” J.A. 282, arguing this shows the 

ALJ’s credibility determinations were based on an incorrect premise. The ALJ did not rest 

her credibility determinations on “daily contact” between G.M. and the HCPS witnesses. 

Instead, the ALJ devoted four paragraphs to explaining why she credited some witnesses 

more than others. She explained that G.M.’s expert witnesses had “little direct knowledge

of the Student,” since none had administered assessments to G.M. or spent much time with 

him. J.A. 282. By contrast, G.M.’s teacher, Ms. Clark, had “observed [G.M.] daily,” while

other HCPS witnesses, namely Mrs. Redmiles and Mrs. Nalepa, had “conducted 

assessments and observations” of him. J.A. 283. The ALJ concluded: “To the extent that 

certain of the HCPS witnesses have direct knowledge of the Student, his achievement and 

behavior, and the processes followed by HCPS, I give more weight to their testimony.” 

J.A. 282. Needless to say, this explanation does not evince abdication of the ALJ’s 

responsibility to decide the case. See J.P., 516 F.3d at 259. 

USCA4 Appeal: 21-1247 Doc: 63 Filed: 09/04/2024 Pg: 15 of 30
16

her son.” J.A. 282. Once again, this explanation simply confirms that the ALJ’s factual 

findings and credibility determinations were regularly made. 

In sum, the ALJ conducted a proper hearing during which both sides were allowed 

to present evidence and arguments. Because the ALJ’s factual findings and credibility 

determinations were regularly made, we are permitted to rely on them when making our 

“independent decision based on a preponderance of the evidence.” Doyle, 953 F.2d at 103. 

To the extent we wish to depart from those findings, we will be required to justify that 

departure. MM, 303 F.3d at 531; see also A.B., 354 F.3d at 327 (faulting district court for 

failing to explain “how it, despite the fact that it was reviewing a cold record, reached a 

conclusion completely contrary to that of the ALJ, who conducted the proceedings”). With 

deference established, we turn to the substance of this case. 

C.

The IDEA guarantees special education for children who qualify as a “child with a 

disability.” 20 U.S.C. § 1401(3), (14), (29). The term “child with a disability” is defined, 

in relevant part, as a child “(i) with . . . other health impairments, or specific learning 

disabilities; and (ii) who, by reason thereof, needs special education and related services.” 

Id. § 1401(3)(A); see also Md. Code Ann., Educ. § 8-401(a)(2). We consider each relevant 

element—“specific learning disabilities,” “other health impairments,” “special education,”

and “by reason thereof, needs”—below. 

USCA4 Appeal: 21-1247 Doc: 63 Filed: 09/04/2024 Pg: 16 of 30
17

i.

We first consider whether G.M. had a “specific learning disability.” The IDEA lists 

“specific learning disabilities” (SLDs) as among the disabilities that may entitle a student 

to special education under the statute. 20 U.S.C. § 1401(3)(A). It defines an SLD as:

a disorder in 1 or more of the basic psychological processes involved in 

understanding or in using language, spoken or written, which disorder may 

manifest itself in the imperfect ability to listen, think, speak, read, write, 

spell, or do mathematical calculations. . . . Such term includes such 

conditions as . . . dyslexia . . . .” 

Id. § 1401(30); see also 34 C.F.R. § 300.8(c)(10) (same). 

Consistent with that definition, federal regulations provide that “[a] State must adopt

. . . criteria for determining whether a child has a specific learning disability as defined in 

§ 300.8(c)(10).” 34 C.F.R. § 300.307(a). Maryland has done so. Its regulations provide 

that an IEP team “shall determine that a student has an SLD if”: 

The student does not achieve adequately for the student’s age or meet Stateapproved grade level standards when provided with learning experiences 

appropriate for the student’s age and ability levels in one or more of the 

following areas:

(i) Oral expression;

(ii) Listening comprehension;

(iii) Basic reading skills;

(iv) Reading fluency skills;

(v) Reading comprehension;

(vi) Written expression;

(vii) Mathematics calculation; or

(viii) Mathematics problem solving[.]

Md. Code Regs. 13A.05.01.06(D)(2)(a). 

USCA4 Appeal: 21-1247 Doc: 63 Filed: 09/04/2024 Pg: 17 of 30
18

The Maryland regulations identify two metrics by which an IEP team can determine 

that a student’s achievement is inadequate and forms the basis for an SLD. Those two 

metrics ask whether the student: 

(i) Does not make sufficient progress to meet age or State-approved gradelevel standards in one or more of the areas identified in §D(2) of this 

regulation, when using a process based on the student’s response to scientific 

research-based intervention; or

(ii) Exhibits a pattern of strengths and weaknesses in performance, 

achievement, or both, relative to age, State-approved grade-level standards, 

or intellectual development.

Id. 13A.05.01.06(D)(3).6

 

HCPS used the “pattern of strengths and weaknesses” metric to determine whether 

G.M. had an SLD. Therefore, the question is whether HCPS was, by a preponderance of 

the evidence, correct to conclude that G.M. did not exhibit “a pattern of strengths and 

weaknesses in performance, achievement, or both, relative to age, State-approved gradelevel standards, or intellectual development.”7

 

6 Neither party disputes that the Maryland regulations are consistent with the federal 

regulations, which use near identical language when discussing the SLD determination 

process. See 34 C.F.R. § 300.309; see also M.L. ex rel. Leiman v. Smith, 867 F.3d 487, 

493 n.5 (4th Cir. 2017) (explaining that the “Maryland statutes and regulations designed to 

implement the IDEA . . . do not deviate materially from their federal counterparts”). 

7 The parties do not focus on the third comparator, “intellectual development.” 34 

C.F.R. § 300.309(a)(2)(ii); Md. Code Regs. 13A.05.01.06(D)(3)(ii). G.M. makes a passing 

reference to his MAP scores indicating a “weakness relative to [his] intellect,” Opening Br. 

39, but “a party forfeits an argument by failing to develop it in the opening brief, even if 

its brief takes a passing shot at the issue,” United States v. Smith, 75 F.4th 459, 468 (4th 

Cir. 2023) (internal quotation marks omitted). 

USCA4 Appeal: 21-1247 Doc: 63 Filed: 09/04/2024 Pg: 18 of 30
19

During the eligibility process, HCPS found that G.M. had a strength in mathematics 

problem solving, a conclusion “based on standardized assessment data, instructional level 

above grade level, and teacher report.” J.A. 580. G.M.’s parents agreed. They disagreed, 

however, with HCPS’s determination that G.M. did not exhibit a weakness in reading or 

writing, such that no “pattern of strengths and weaknesses” was discernable. The ALJ 

found for HCPS. In particular, the ALJ found that G.M. demonstrated “average . . . 

achievement” in reading and writing, not a weakness in either. J.A. 287. We see no need 

to depart from that finding. And while it is not necessary to explain our reasons for relying 

on regularly made factual findings, which are prima facie correct, we do so here to provide 

a fulsome response to the parties’ arguments. 

The record does not indicate—by a preponderance of the evidence—that G.M. had 

a weakness in reading (i.e., basic reading, reading fluency, or reading comprehension). 

G.M’s second-grade MAP reading scores showed him in the “average range” for students 

his age, notwithstanding a drop in percentile rank from the previous year. J.A. 1597. 

G.M.’s Woodcock-Johnson IV scores placed him “in the Average range of [reading] 

achievement (SS 98) for a student of his age.” J.A. 546 (emphasis omitted). And that 

assessment found that G.M.’s scores in reading, broad reading, basic reading, reading rate, 

passage comprehension, letter-word identification, sentence reading fluency, and word 

reading fluency were within “average range.” J.A. 1523–1524. Mrs. Nalepa’s tests found 

that G.M.’s phonological awareness was “Low Average” and that his phonological 

memory, blending, segmenting, rhyming, and the like were “average.” J.A. 931. Inside 

the classroom, Ms. Clark testified that G.M.’s reading put him “in the middle somewhere” 

USCA4 Appeal: 21-1247 Doc: 63 Filed: 09/04/2024 Pg: 19 of 30
20

of his class. J.A. 1461. And her final report card indicated that G.M. was “On Grade” for 

reading instruction, J.A. 743, and was “independent[ly] or with assistance meeting all of 

the criteria that are listed” for reading, J.A. 1442. 

G.M. highlights other evidence from the record. Dr. Morrison’s report indicated 

that G.M. suffered from serious phonological deficiencies, but that must be weighed 

against Mrs. Nalepa’s and Ms. Clark’s phonological findings, as well as Dr. Morrison’s 

own finding that G.M.’s “early reading skills were average.” J.A. 441. Ms. Clark did note, 

toward the beginning of the school year, that G.M. was “[w]orking towards curriculum 

standard[s]” in reading. J.A. 413. But HCPS witnesses testified that students are not 

expected to master the curriculum until the “end of second grade.” J.A. 1546. Indeed, Ms. 

Clark indicated, toward the end of the year, that G.M. was “meeting curriculum standards” 

in reading. J.A. 547. G.M. also argues that the drop in his MAP scores shows he had a 

weakness in reading, since he did much better when the test was read aloud to him in first 

grade than when he was forced to read it himself in second grade. But there was testimony 

in the record that the MAP questions became “more complex” for G.M. in second grade, 

“adjust[ing] based on” his solid performance in first grade. J.A. 1548. And putting that 

aside, the drop in test scores is consistent with G.M. being an average reader, one who 

perhaps benefited from the questions being read aloud. 

G.M. focuses on his purportedly slow reading rate. The record suggests that 

HCPS’s goals for second graders is instruction in Level J–M texts at a rate of approximately 

75–120 words per minute. See J.A. 1037–1038. Ms. Clark’s F&P benchmark assessment, 

which tracked reading rate, accuracy, and comprehension, indicated that G.M. hovered 

USCA4 Appeal: 21-1247 Doc: 63 Filed: 09/04/2024 Pg: 20 of 30
21

around Level J texts for months, ending the year on Level M with a reading rate of around 

62 words per minute. Because HCPS’s own documentation stated that G.M. was “working 

towards the expected words per minute for [F&P],” J.A. 1037, G.M. argues he had a 

weakness in reading fluency, defined as “reading accuracy and rate,” see Md. Code Ann., 

Educ. § 4-136(a)(2).8

 There are several problems with this. First, there was contrary 

evidence in the record, such as Mrs. Redmiles’s finding that G.M.’s reading rate and word 

reading fluency were average. G.M. himself introduced evidence indicating that his 

reading rate was higher. See J.A. 795 (tutor explaining G.M.’s reading rate “moved to 

about 80 words/minute” by end of second grade). Second, G.M. has not demonstrated 

what magnitude of deviation from the expected words per minute would translate to a 

cognizable weakness in reading fluency. Third, we afford “great deference to the judgment 

of education professionals in implementing the IDEA,” and none of those professionals

found that G.M.’s slower reading would amount to a weakness in fluency. E.L., 773 F.3d 

at 517. For these reasons and those already discussed, we see no need to depart from the 

ALJ’s finding that G.M. did not have a weakness in reading.

The record is more mixed concerning G.M.’s writing. Ms. Clark, the person with 

arguably the most direct knowledge of G.M.’s second-grade writing, raised concerns about 

it throughout the school year. She told the IEP team she believed G.M. had a “weakness” 

in written expression. J.A. 581. She indicated toward the end of the school year that G.M. 

8 G.M. also cites data from Jemicy indicating that G.M. began his third-grade year 

with a slow reading rate. But see J.A. 1220 (Ms. Gittings explaining that the Jemicy data 

is “nothing that you can look at and say, oh, you know, he’s at this grade level.”). 

USCA4 Appeal: 21-1247 Doc: 63 Filed: 09/04/2024 Pg: 21 of 30
22

was still “working towards curriculum standards” in writing. J.A. 549; see also J.A. 1032. 

When discussing G.M.’s writing on his final report card, she noted that “[m]any 

assignments this year were missing, incomplete or not turned in, making it difficult to fully 

assess [G.M.’s] abilities.” J.A. 744. And she testified, “overall, I definitely think that 

writing was [G.M.’s] weakest area and would say overall he was not meeting” curriculum 

standards. J.A. 1477. 

By contrast, formal assessments indicated that G.M.’s written expression was 

average. Mrs. Redmiles’s Woodcock-Johnson IV testing found that G.M. displayed 

“average” writing achievement.9

 J.A. 548. Dr. Morrison found that G.M. had “average” 

scores in written expression, though his alphabet writing fluency was at the “lowest end of 

the average range.” J.A. 442. And notwithstanding her concerns, Ms. Clark’s final report 

card showed G.M. “independent[ly] or with assistance meeting all of the criteria that are 

listed” for writing. J.A. 1442. Moreover, G.M. has failed to distinguish between struggling 

in writing, which he undoubtedly did, and having a “weakness” in written expression under 

the implementing regulations. 

Deference to the ALJ and HCPS resolves this question. The ALJ heard testimony, 

including cross-examination, about whether G.M.’s writing constituted a weakness relative 

to age or state-approved grade-level standards. The ALJ found that it did not, and we defer 

9 G.M. suggests that HCPS (and the ALJ) used this “one data point” to “negate” the 

“legions of evidence” showing that G.M. had a weakness in writing. Opening Br. 36. To 

the contrary, the record shows that HCPS drew upon “information from a variety of 

sources,” as required by law. 34 C.F.R. § 300.306(c)(1)(i). Whether HCPS weighed that 

information correctly when reaching its decision is an issue to which we accord the school 

system “great deference.” E.L., 773 F.3d at 517. 

USCA4 Appeal: 21-1247 Doc: 63 Filed: 09/04/2024 Pg: 22 of 30
23

to those factual findings and credibility determinations. See T.B., Jr., 897 F.3d at 575

(“ALJs are typically in a far superior position to evaluate witness testimony than are 

reviewing courts” and “almost inevitably rely on various cues that are lost on an appellate 

court later sifting through a paper record.” (internal quotation marks and ellipses omitted)). 

Similarly, “great deference” is owed to the “views of the school system.” A.B., 354 F.3d 

at 328. Respect for regularly made factual findings and deference to the school system 

point to the same conclusion here: G.M. did not have a weakness in written expression.10 

And since he had no pattern of strengths and weaknesses relative to age or state-approved 

grade-level standards, G.M. did not have an SLD. 

Before concluding, we stress that district courts may rely on regularly made factual 

findings without further justification or explanation. Explanation is required for departing 

from such findings, not relying upon them. See MM, 303 F.3d at 531. Our caselaw does 

not require district courts (or this Court) to recapitulate the entire record to justify reliance 

on regularly made findings. See Doyle, 953 F.2d at 105. We have done so here in response 

10 G.M. argues that the ALJ applied the wrong legal standard when assessing 

whether he had a weakness in reading and writing. According to him, the ALJ relied on a 

“mere improvement” standard, Opening Br. 40, under which a child who “makes any 

gains” during the year cannot qualify for special education, Reply Br. 7. G.M. argues that 

the ALJ was required to consider whether and to what degree G.M. was performing “below 

grade level.” Opening Br. 31. As our discussion should make clear, we think the ALJ did 

just that. The ALJ did not rely on G.M.’s improvement without regard to how his starting 

and ending position compared to same-aged peers. Rather, the ALJ noted various data 

points suggesting that G.M. was objectively average, while adding that his improvement 

over the course of the year provided further evidence that G.M. did not have a weakness in 

reading and writing. A student’s trajectory over the course of a school year can of course 

be relevant when assessing his strengths and weaknesses. 

USCA4 Appeal: 21-1247 Doc: 63 Filed: 09/04/2024 Pg: 23 of 30
24

to the parties’ arguments, particularly the charge that the district court “did not thoroughly 

or carefully review the record,” Opening Br. 23, an assertion we reject.

ii.

We next consider whether G.M. had an “other health impairment.” The IDEA lists 

“other health impairments” (OHIs) as another category of disability that may entitle a 

student to special education. 20 U.S.C. § 1401(3)(A). The federal regulations define 

“other health impairment” as: 

having limited strength, vitality, or alertness, including a heightened 

alertness to environmental stimuli, that results in limited alertness with 

respect to the educational environment, that—(i) Is due to chronic or acute 

health problems such as . . . attention deficit disorder or attention deficit 

hyperactivity disorder . . . ; and (ii) Adversely affects a child’s educational 

performance.

34 C.F.R. § 300.8(c)(9); see also Md. Code Regs. 13A.05.01.03(B)(51) (materially same).

The parties agree that G.M. has ADHD and that his ADHD adversely affects his 

educational performance. G.M., 2021 WL 409856, at *6. Therefore, G.M. has a qualifying 

disability in the form of an OHI. 

iii.

We now turn to the meaning of “special education.” A “child with a disability” is a 

child with a qualifying disability, such as an SLD or OHI, who, by reason thereof, needs 

“special education and related services.” 20 U.S.C. § 1401(3)(A); see also Md. Code Ann., 

Educ. § 8-401(a)(2). The parties dispute whether the Orton-Gillingham instruction G.M. 

was requesting from HCPS qualifies as “special education.” 

USCA4 Appeal: 21-1247 Doc: 63 Filed: 09/04/2024 Pg: 24 of 30
25

The IDEA defines “special education” as “specially designed instruction.” 20 

U.S.C. § 1401(29); see also Md. Code Ann., Educ. § 8-401(a)(5). And federal regulations

define “specially designed instruction” as: 

adapting, as appropriate to the needs of an eligible child under this part, the 

content, methodology, or delivery of instruction—(i) To address the unique 

needs of the child that result from the child’s disability; and (ii) To ensure 

access of the child to the general curriculum, so that the child can meet the 

educational standards within the jurisdiction of the public agency that apply 

to all children.

34 C.F.R. § 300.39(b)(3); see also Md. Code Regs. 13A.05.01.03(B)(72). 

The ALJ concluded that Orton-Gillingham did not qualify as “special education” 

because it “can be used to teach children who are not dyslexic outside of special education.” 

J.A. 294; see also J.A. 296–297. We cannot accept that reasoning. First, the record 

indicates that Orton-Gillingham is a “methodology” that addresses the “unique needs” of 

dyslexic children to “ensure access of the [children] to the general curriculum.” 34 C.F.R. 

§ 300.39(b)(3). Indeed, the Maryland Department of Education describes “structured 

literacy instruction” like Orton-Gillingham as a “highly recommended” form of “specially 

designed instruction” that has been “demonstrated through research to teach skills” affected 

by “persistent reading disabilities, such as dyslexia.” J.A. 1050, 1159. Second, since

HCPS “does not currently use Orton-Gillingham,” J.A. 512, the school system likely would

have had to adapt the “content, methodology, or delivery” of its instruction. That suggests 

that Orton-Gillingham can qualify as “special education.” The ALJ’s belief that OrtonGillingham is general education simply because it can be used to teach nondisabled 

children strikes us as mistaken. 

USCA4 Appeal: 21-1247 Doc: 63 Filed: 09/04/2024 Pg: 25 of 30
26

HCPS acknowledges that Orton-Gillingham “can be specially designed instruction” 

but argues it just isn’t here. Response Br. 46. HCPS emphasizes that Orton-Gillingham, 

as requested by G.M. and as practiced at Jemicy, is not special education because Jemicy

instructors are not required to be certified special education teachers. But “the IDEA does 

not define ‘special education’ to include only education by certified special education 

teachers, but rather encompasses a broader range of instruction.” Q.C-C. v. District of 

Columbia, 164 F. Supp. 3d 35, 51 (D.D.C. 2016).

Though we reject the ALJ and HCPS’s reasons for concluding that OrtonGillingham is not “special education,” the record is unclear as to how Orton-Gillingham 

was practiced by G.M.’s tutor or at Jemicy and what specific type of instruction G.M. was 

requesting. We thus assume, without deciding, that the Orton-Gillingham instruction 

requested by G.M. was “special education.” 

iv.

Lastly, we consider whether G.M. needed special education. A student qualifies as 

a “child with a disability” only if he “needs” special education because of his qualifying 

disability. 20 U.S.C. § 1401(3)(A); see also Md. Code Ann., Educ. § 8-401(a)(2). “Neither 

the IDEA nor federal regulations define what it means to ‘need’ special education and 

related services.” Lisa M. v. Leander Indep. Sch. Dist., 924 F.3d 205, 216 (5th Cir. 2019)

(internal quotation marks and brackets omitted). However, this Court has held that “a 

student does not ‘need’ such services if the student is already getting what would qualify 

as a [FAPE] without them.” Miller, 64 F.4th at 575. 

USCA4 Appeal: 21-1247 Doc: 63 Filed: 09/04/2024 Pg: 26 of 30
27

A FAPE entails “an educational program reasonably calculated to enable a child to 

make progress appropriate in light of the child’s circumstances.” Endrew F., 137 S. Ct. at

1001. It is not synonymous with “the best possible education.” MM, 303 F.3d at 526; see 

Bd. of Educ. of Hendrick Hudson Cent. Sch. Dist. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, 200 (1982) 

(“[T]he Act [does not] require[] [States] to maximize the potential of each handicapped 

child . . . .”). “[F]or most children,” namely, those “integrated in the regular classroom,” a 

FAPE means an educational program “reasonably calculated to enable the child to achieve 

passing marks and advance from grade to grade.” Endrew F., 137 S. Ct. at 999–1000

(internal quotation marks omitted). “Progress through this system is what our society 

generally means by an ‘education.’” Id. at 999 (“Regular examinations are administered, 

grades are awarded, and yearly advancement to higher grade levels is permitted for those 

children who attain an adequate knowledge of the course material.” (internal quotation 

marks omitted)). “And access to an ‘education’ is what the IDEA promises”—no more, 

no less. Id.

G.M. received a FAPE. The record indicates that G.M. was fully integrated in the 

regular classroom; was “able to do second grade work in [a] second grade class,” J.A. 1445; 

received passing marks and was “independent[ly] or with assistance meeting all of the 

criteria that are listed” for second grade, J.A. 1442; and was advancing from grade to 

USCA4 Appeal: 21-1247 Doc: 63 Filed: 09/04/2024 Pg: 27 of 30
28

grade.11 We see no need to depart from the ALJ’s finding that, notwithstanding his OHI, 

G.M. did not “need” special education given his average achievement.12 

G.M.’s parents understandably do not want to settle for average achievement, so 

defined. E.P. testified before the ALJ that she found it “alarming and concerning” to see 

her son’s MAP scores drop given his “IQ and [the fact] that he’s a bright kid.” J.A. 1293. 

No parent wants to see their child not reaching his or her academic potential. But the IDEA 

is not a vehicle for securing a “‘potential-maximizing education.’” M.L., 867 F.3d at 495

(quoting Rowley, 458 U.S. at 197 n.21). 

In sum, G.M. did not qualify as a “child with a disability” because he did not “need” 

special education and related services, and he did not “need” those services because he was 

“already getting what would qualify as a [FAPE] without them.” Miller, 64 F.4th at 575

(emphasis omitted). Because G.M. was ineligible for special education, HCPS did not 

substantively violate the IDEA by declining to provide it to him. 

11 Failing marks or nonadvancement from grade to grade does not necessarily mean 

that a child has been denied a FAPE. The ultimate standard for receipt of a FAPE is an 

education “reasonably calculated” to enable “progress appropriate in light of the child’s 

circumstances.” Endrew F., 137 S. Ct. at 1001. Some children’s circumstances preclude 

passing marks or grade-level advancement, so a FAPE would look different for them. 

Conversely, a child may receive an education “reasonably calculated” to enable grade-level 

advancement, and yet fail to make use of it. That child has not been denied a FAPE. See 

T.B., Jr., 897 F.3d at 578 (“Poor motivation and poor performance do not always and 

invariably lie at the feet of teachers and schools. Students themselves also have to try.”). 

12 While G.M. received Orton-Gillingham tutoring during the latter half of second 

grade, there is no indication that G.M. would not have achieved grade-level advancement 

absent that instruction.

USCA4 Appeal: 21-1247 Doc: 63 Filed: 09/04/2024 Pg: 28 of 30
29

D.

G.M. also alleges that HCPS procedurally violated the IDEA by denying his parents 

their procedural rights to “examine all records” relating to him and to “participate in [IEP] 

meetings.” 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(1).

13 Without finding a substantive violation, however, a 

hearing officer or court “‘may do nothing more than order a school district to comply with 

the [IDEA’s] various procedural requirements.’” R.F., 919 F.3d at 248 (quoting Fry, 137 

S. Ct. at 754 n.6). We have already determined that G.M. was not denied a FAPE, so he is 

limited to procedural relief.

14

G.M. does not seek procedural relief, perhaps because HCPS provided the allegedly 

withheld information during the due process hearing. Instead, G.M. seeks substantive 

13 G.M. also alleges that the ALJ committed procedural violations during the due 

process hearing. Because “federal courts do not superintend or review state administrative 

proceedings under the IDEA, . . . any procedural [errors] that may have occurred during 

those proceedings were not for the district court [or this Court] to review.” Miller, 64 F.4th 

at 574. Alleged procedural errors could affect a federal court’s assessment of whether a

hearing officer’s findings were regularly made or otherwise persuasive, but we harbor no 

such doubts here. 

14 Notwithstanding that determination, G.M. argues he was denied a FAPE based 

on these procedural violations. To support this argument, G.M. relies on the 2004 

amendments to the IDEA, which provide, in relevant part: 

In matters alleging a procedural violation, a hearing officer may find that a 

child did not receive a [FAPE] only if the procedural inadequacies . . .

(II) significantly impeded the parents’ opportunity to participate in the 

decisionmaking process regarding the provision of a [FAPE] to the parents’ 

child . . . . 

20 U.S.C. § 1415(f)(3)(E)(ii). Our Court has interpreted this clause to require “a 

procedural violation,” that “significantly impeded the parents’ opportunity to participate,” 

with the “result” that the “child did not receive a FAPE.” R.F., 919 F.3d at 248 (internal 

USCA4 Appeal: 21-1247 Doc: 63 Filed: 09/04/2024 Pg: 29 of 30
30

relief in the form of a favorable eligibility determination and reimbursement for his Jemicy 

tuition and other costs. Thus, even if we assumed that these procedural violations occurred 

and were properly raised below, they would not entitle G.M. to the substantive relief he 

seeks. In this type of situation, our Court declines to address potential procedural 

violations. See T.B., Jr., 897 F.3d at 573–574. 

III.

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is

AFFIRMED.

quotation marks and brackets omitted). Because G.M. received a FAPE, Section 

1415(f)(3)(E)(ii)(II) is inapplicable. 

USCA4 Appeal: 21-1247 Doc: 63 Filed: 09/04/2024 Pg: 30 of 30