Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/975/193/163516/
Timestamp: 2019-05-20 22:35:59
Document Index: 281906240

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1415', '§ 1292', '§ 1292', '§ 1292', '§ 1292', '§ 1292', '§ 1415', '§ 1415', '§ 1415', '§ 1412', '§ 89', '§ 1401', '§ 1412', '§ 1415', '§ 1232', '§ 1983', '§ 794', '§ 1291', '§ 1415', '§ 636', '§ 636', '§ 636']

Sherri A.d., Etc., et al., Plaintiffs-appellants, v. W.n. Kirby, Commissioner of Education of the Texas Educationagency, Individually and in His Official Capacity,et al., Defendants,andtexas Education Agency and Texas School for the Blind Andvisually Impaired (formerly Texas School for Theblind), Defendants-appellees, 975 F.2d 193 (5th Cir. 1992) :: Justia
Justia › US Law › Case Law › Federal Courts › Courts of Appeals › Fifth Circuit › 1992 › Sherri A.d., Etc., et al., Plaintiffs-appellants, v. W.n. Kirby, Commissioner of Education of the Te...
Sherri A.d., Etc., et al., Plaintiffs-appellants, v. W.n. Kirby, Commissioner of Education of the Texas Educationagency, Individually and in His Official Capacity,et al., Defendants,andtexas Education Agency and Texas School for the Blind Andvisually Impaired (formerly Texas School for Theblind), Defendants-appellees, 975 F.2d 193 (5th Cir. 1992)
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit - 975 F.2d 193 (5th Cir. 1992)
On September 1, 1987, the special education hearing officer rendered a decision, finding that under Board of Educ. of Hendrick Hudson Cent. School Dist., Westchester County v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, 102 S. Ct. 3034, 73 L. Ed. 2d 690 (1982), Sherri's placement at the School for the Blind was "appropriate," because Sherri obtained "educational benefit" from services provided there. However, the special education hearing officer found that Sherri should nevertheless be transferred from the School for the Blind to a community placement, because the School for the Blind was not the least restrictive environment in which Sherri could receive specialized education services from which she would obtain educational benefit.
The hearing officer noted that the record "clearly reflect [ed]" that the School District had placed Sherri at the School for the Blind with the intent of "leaving the child in the charge of that facility for the remainder of the child's public education career." Thus, the School District's actions amounted to an attempt to "dump" this difficult-to-serve child in an institution and leave her there, in violation of the mandate to serve children with special needs in the least restrictive environment (presumptively the community).4
The School District has had a program for severely handicapped students since 1974, but according to the special education hearing officer's September, 1987 decision, the School District "admits that it has never taken steps to modify or upgrade the facilities for the purpose of serving Sherri or any other individual student," and until the School for the Blind attempted to discharge Sherri, " [did] nothing to attempt to bring Sherri home." The special education hearing officer considered the necessary changes to the School District's day program to be minimal (obtaining the services of a vocational teacher and certain facilities required to teach laundry sorting, feeding skills, and other activities of daily living). The School District's expert witness, a special education teacher who developed and drafted the individualized educational plan ["IEP"] adopted by the School District's ARD, conceded that the School District could educate Sherri in its day program with some minor alterations thereto. However, the special education teacher expressed "concern ... that the degree of consistency necessary to guarantee success could not be provided in the living environment provided by Sherri's guardian [her grandmother]."
Plaintiff appealed the February Order to this court, contending that it violates the "stay-put provision" of EAHCA, 20 U.S.C. § 1415(e) (3). Plaintiff has requested in addition that we take jurisdiction over matters outside the scope of that order but equally entwined with the merits.
Ever since the Judiciary Act of 1789, there has been a federal policy that an appeal may be taken only from a final decision. Cobbledick v. United States, 309 U.S. 323, 326, 60 S. Ct. 540, 541, 84 L. Ed. 783 (1940). Generally, a district court's decision is final only when it "ends the litigation on the merits and leaves nothing for the court to do but execute the judgment." Catlin v. United States, 324 U.S. 229, 233, 65 S. Ct. 631, 633, 89 L. Ed. 911 (1945) (citation omitted). See also Gulfstream Aerospace Corp. v. Mayacamas Corp., 485 U.S. 271, 275, 108 S. Ct. 1133, 1136, 99 L. Ed. 2d 296 (1988). The purpose behind this rule is to avoid piecemeal appeals, which in turn conserves "judicial energy" and may help to eliminate delay. Catlin, 324 U.S. at 233-34, 65 S. Ct. at 633-34. The rule also "avoid [s] the obstruction of just claims that would come from permitting the harassment and cost of a succession of separate appeals from the various rulings to which a litigation may give rise, from its initiation to entry of judgment." Cobbledick, 309 U.S. at 325, 60 S. Ct. at 541.
We do not have jurisdiction over the appeal of the February Order under the collateral orders exception to the final judgment rule. The February Order does not "finally determine claims of right separable from, and collateral to, rights asserted in the action, too important to be denied review and too independent of the cause itself to require that appellate consideration be deferred until the whose case is adjudicated." Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 546, 69 S. Ct. 1221, 1225-26, 93 L. Ed. 1528 (1949). See also Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Risjord, 449 U.S. 368, 101 S. Ct. 669, 66 L. Ed. 2d 571 (1981); Coopers & Lybrand v. Livesay, 437 U.S. 463, 98 S. Ct. 2454, 57 L. Ed. 2d 351 (1978).13 To the contrary, the substance of the February Order is inextricably enmeshed in the merits (i.e., Sherri's placement). Thus, we do not obtain jurisdiction over it based on the collateral orders exception to the final judgment rule.
The magistrate judge has not certified that the February Order involves a "controlling question of law as to which there is substantial ground for difference of opinion and that an immediate appeal from the order may materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation," 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). There is, however, another statutory exception to the final judgment rule which is designed to permit appeals to circuit courts from interlocutory orders of the district courts "granting, continuing, modifying, refusing or dissolving injunctions, or refusing to dissolve or modify injunctions, except where direct review may be had in the Supreme Court ..." 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a) (1). Whether the injunction is preliminary or permanent is immaterial for purposes of determining appellate jurisdiction under § 1292(a) (1). Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Kerrville Bus Co., Inc., 925 F.2d 129 (5th Cir. 1991).
Orders which explicitly grant or deny injunctive relief are immediately appealable as of right; no additional finding of a threat of immediate, irreparable injury is required. See Kerrville Bus Co., 925 F.2d at 132-33; see also Atwood Turnkey Drilling, Inc. v. Petroleo Brasileiro, S.A., 875 F.2d 1174, 1176 (5th Cir. 1989). The February Order does not explicitly grant or deny any injunction, although its effect is the same.
Those orders which, like the February Order, have the practical effect of denying an injunction, but do not do so in explicit terms, are immediately appealable if the order threatens "serious, perhaps irreparable consequences" and can be effectively challenged only by immediate appeal. Carson v. American Brands, Inc., 450 U.S. 79, 84, 101 S. Ct. 993, 996, 67 L. Ed. 2d 59 (1981).14 See also Kerrville Bus Co., 925 F.2d at 132-33. The showing of a threat of immediate and irreparable harm that is required in cases like Carson prior to the appellate court's review of the order is a safeguard against undue widening of the floodgates which currently keep in proper bounds the § 1292(a) (1) exception to the final judgment rule. If an order explicitly grants or denies an injunction, the same concern that animates Carson (the concern not to expand exceptions to the final judgment rule too far) does not apply. An explicit grant, denial or modification of an injunction is simple to recognize and cannot be conjured up by sophistic counsel where it does not in fact exist. Thus, if an interlocutory order explicitly affects the availability of injunctive relief, it is immediately appealable regardless of whether irreparable injury is threatened by the order.
Because the February Order does not explicitly deny an injunction, we must also find, under Carson, that the February Order not only had the practical effect of denying an injunction against Sherri's transfer but also presents a threat of serious, perhaps irreparable consequences which may be effectively addressed only by an immediate appeal.15 We think it does. By the terms of the order, Sherri is to be moved prior to entry of final judgment. Thus, if injury results, it will result prior to the time at which appeal of a final judgment is possible. If Sherri is moved to a community residence before services appropriate to her needs and to which she is entitled under EAHCA are available, her cognitive and social skills may deteriorate, or her educational progress might be unduly delayed, meaning she would not obtain the requisite benefit from public education. See Rowley, 458 U.S. at 189-92, 200-03, 102 S. Ct. at 3042-44, 3047-49 (defining "free appropriate education" under EAHCA as individualized instruction and supportive services which confer "some educational benefit" upon the disabled child). Moreover, such a move would entail emotional upheaval for Sherri, accustomed as she is to a particular environment, a particular routine, and caretakers who (for the most part) will not follow her to her new placement. Sherri has very limited capacity to comprehend why she is being moved.16
The preliminary injunction hearing was postponed repeatedly and apparently was never held. However, whether the magistrate judge had earlier denied plaintiff's specific request for a preliminary injunction against moving Sherri, or effectively did so with his February 5, 1991 Order, we have jurisdiction under § 1292(a) (1).
We decline to reach these other claims. Unlike the February Order, none of these other issues can be construed as granting, modifying or denying an injunction.17 Moreover, none represents a threat of irreparable harm if not addressed by us at this juncture. See, e.g., Northwestern Nat'l Insurance Co. of Milwaukee v. Alberts, 937 F.2d 77, 82 (2d Cir. 1991) (threat of irreparable harm due to an interlocutory order does not exist where party can be made whole upon resolution of case on merits). Finally, none of these matters fits into the collateral orders exception to the final judgment rule.18
The order denying class certification in this case does not have any irreparable effect,19 can be reviewed either by the magistrate judge prior to entry of final judgment or by an appellate court thereafter, does not affect the merits of Sherri's individual claim (i.e., her placement),20 and does not itself resolve the legal status of plaintiff's claims for injunctive relief (i.e., that the eligibility criteria not be applied and that Sherri not be moved from the School for the Blind). Thus, the order denying class certification is unreviewable by us on interlocutory appeal. See Gardner v. Westinghouse Broadcasting Co., 437 U.S. 478, 480-81, 98 S. Ct. 2451, 2453, 57 L. Ed. 2d 364 (1978) (plaintiff who brought gender discrimination action on behalf of self and other women was unable to make interlocutory appeal of denial of class certification even where "the practical effect of denial of class certification is ... to refuse a substantial portion of the injunctive relief requested in the complaint"); see also Coopers & Lybrand v. Livesay, 437 U.S. 463, 98 S. Ct. 2454, 57 L. Ed. 2d 351 (1978) (decertification of class action not appealable as a matter of right, whether as a collateral order or under any other exception to final judgment rule).
The "stay-put" provision of EAHCA, 20 U.S.C. § 1415(e) (3), does not tie the hands of the courts.21 In Honig v. Doe, the Supreme Court explained that § 1415(e) (3) was designed as a remedy against "the unilateral exclusion of disabled children by schools, not courts.... The stay-put provision in no way purports to limit or preempt the authority conferred on courts by § 1415(e) (2) ...; indeed, it says nothing whatever about judicial power." 484 U.S. 305, 327, 108 S. Ct. 592, 606, 98 L. Ed. 2d 686 (1988) (emphasis in original; citation omitted). See also Burlington School Comm. v. Massachusetts Dep't of Educ., 471 U.S. 359, 373, 105 S. Ct. 1996, 2004, 85 L. Ed. 2d 385 (1985) (the stay-put provision's purposes include "prevent [ing] school officials from removing a child from the regular public school classroom over the parents' objection pending completion of the review proceedings"); Andersen by Andersen v. District of Columbia, 877 F.2d 1018 (D.C. Cir. 1989) (rejecting claim that the stay-put provision ties the hands of courts and schools alike until all administrative or judicial review is completed, and noting that "once a district court has rendered its decision approving change in placement, that change is no longer the consequence of a unilateral decision by school authorities ... once a district court has resolved the issue of appropriate placement, the child is entitled to an injunction only outside the stay-put provision, i.e., by establishing the usual grounds for such relief").
An educational placement, for the purposes of EAHCA, is not changed unless a fundamental change in, or elimination of, a basic element of the educational program has occurred. See, e.g., Lunceford v. District of Columbia Bd. of Educ., 745 F.2d 1577 (D.C. Cir. 1984). Thus, the February Order, by directing that Sherri be moved during the pendency of the action, but that she continue to receive appropriate educational services, did not violate EAHCA and was well within the powers of the magistrate judge.
Under EAHCA, the principle of "mainstreaming" disabled individuals with able-bodied individuals is well established. See, e.g., Board of Educ. of Hendrick Hudson Cent. School Dist., Westchester County v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, 202-03, 102 S. Ct. 3034, 3049 (1982). Even in cases in which mainstreaming is not a feasible alternative, there is a statutory preference for serving disabled individuals in the setting which is least restrictive of their liberty and which is near the community in which their families live. See, e.g., Burlington School Comm., 471 U.S. at 373, 105 S. Ct. at 2004; Kerkam v. Superintendent, D.C. Public Schools, 931 F.2d 84, 87 (D.C. Cir. 1991). The decisions of both the special education hearing officer and the magistrate judge appear to have been based upon this understanding of EAHCA and relevant Texas regulations.
While the School for the Blind might be capable of providing services from which Sherri may obtain "educational benefit" (the standard for "appropriateness" of free public education under Rowley), the School for the Blind is not the least restrictive environment in which Sherri may receive appropriate educational services. The capacity of the School for the Blind to provide educational services to Sherri may in some respects far exceed what EAHCA requires. However, EAHCA does not mandate that every child with a disability receive optimal services. Lunceford, 745 F.2d at 1583 ("The EAHCA does not secure the best education money can buy; it calls upon government, more modestly, to provide an appropriate education for each child"); Rowley, 458 U.S. at 198201, 102 S. Ct. at 3046-3048; Knight v. District of Columbia, 877 F.2d 1025, 1028-30 (D.C. Cir. 1989); Kerkam, 931 F.2d at 87. Instead, EAHCA requires that "appropriate" educational services be delivered in the least restrictive environment available, with a preference for mainstreaming when possible.23 The concern for enhancing the disabled child's ability to obtain educational benefit must be balanced with concerns about limited public resources, the need to provide basic educational opportunities to disabled and able-bodied children alike, and the concern to serve the disabled child in the environment which is least restrictive of the child's liberty.
Her statutory entitlement to free appropriate public education will terminate when she attains age twenty-two. See 20 U.S.C. § 1412(2) (B)
The hearing officer reviewed the EAHCA and relevant Texas regulations governing residential placements of public school children and concluded that the laws evinced a preference for placements in the community, and in case of institutional placements, a "continuing effort ... to return the child to his or her home." The hearing officer noted that "the applicable law does not envision residential placements in any institution, public or private, as a permanent solution to the child's educational needs. [E]xcept in the most extreme circumstances, the residential placement is properly viewed as a temporary solution in order to buy time for the resident district to gear up to serve the child locally." We believe the special education hearing officer correctly assessed the law. Compare 19 Tex.Admin.Code § 89.227(g) (1) (B) (iii) ("A residential application will not be approved if the application indicates ... [t]he district does not have a plan with time lines and criteria for returning the student to the local school program") with 20 U.S.C. § 1401(18) ("The term "free appropriate public education" means special education and related services that ... meet the standards of the State educational agency"), and 20 U.S.C. § 1412(5) (B) (requiring participating states to put in place "procedures to assure that, to the maximum extent appropriate, handicapped children, including children in public or private institutions or other care facilities, are educated with children who are not handicapped, and that special classes, separate schooling, or other removal of handicapped children from the regular educational environment occurs only when the nature or severity of the handicap is such that education in regular classes with the use of supplementary aids cannot be achieved satisfactorily"). See also David D. v. Dartmouth School Committee, 775 F.2d 411, 417-19 (1st Cir. 1985), cert. denied, Massachusetts Dep't of Education v. David D., 475 U.S. 1140, 106 S. Ct. 1790, 90 L. Ed. 2d 336 (1986) (finding that the "federal right to a free appropriate public education incorporates substantive rights authorized by state special education law which become part of the federal core right"); Rowley, 458 U.S. at 202-03, 102 S. Ct. at 3049 (noting that the "mainstreaming preference" of the EAHCA means that the Act "requires participating States to educate handicapped children with nonhandicapped children whenever possible")
An "educational placement" under EAHCA is not a place, but a program of services from which the child can obtain some educational benefit; not necessarily the perfect education. See Lunceford v. District of Columbia Bd. of Educ., 745 F.2d 1577 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (change in feeding schedule that would occur with transfer of severely handicapped young adult from private hospital to public institution insufficient to constitute "change in educational placement"; although the court refused to find that a change in residence for a profoundly handicapped child can never be a change in educational placement, it noted that any such change would have to result in a "fundamental change in, or elimination of a basic element of the educational program" before it constituted a change of educational placement); Knight v. District of Columbia, 877 F.2d 1025, 1029 (D.C. Cir. 1989) (a school district discharges its duty under EAHCA to deliver an appropriate education "if it merely places the student in a program "sufficient to confer some educational benefit," " quoting Rowley, 458 U.S. at 200, 102 S. Ct. at 3047 (emphasis added)).
EAHCA allows " [a]ny party aggrieved by the findings and decision" of the special education hearing officer to file suit in state or federal court. 20 U.S.C. § 1415(e) (2). Plaintiff also brought claims under the Fourteenth Amendment, the Family Education Rights and Privacy Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1232g, the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794
Defendant Texas Education Agency ("TEA") explains that the delay in entry of judgment and the ambiguousness of the February Order is due to the "preliminary" nature of the order. In characterizing the order as "preliminary," and in denying that the order poses any threat of irreparable injury, TEA hopes to discourage this court from exercising jurisdiction over plaintiff's appeal. In support of its argument, TEA refers to the magistrate judge's requirement of periodic reports and a transition plan which would "include a date of transfer, place of housing, provider of educational component, all necessary and required statutory and regulatory approvals, and the signature of all parties." TEA also notes that the magistrate judge began the February Order with a requirement that the parties show cause why the court should not add two parties; moreover, the magistrate judge's June 27, 1991 order suggests that he did not view his February Order as final and determinative: " [i]n the court's opinion, the appeals filed are untimely, no final appealable order or judgment having been entered." The magistrate specifically described as "preliminary" only one element of his February Order--the portion of the order pertaining to the challenge to the eligibility criteria of the School for the Blind. Because we find that the February Order amounts to a denial of an injunction and poses a real, if not certain, threat of irreparable injury (either by causing Sherri's transfer to a setting in which she cannot be served or in which services are currently unavailable), the conflicting characterizations of the order (as preliminary or as nearly final) are of virtually no moment in our consideration of the matter of Sherri's placement. They do, however, carry limited weight in our consideration of appellate jurisdiction over other issues such as the challenge to the eligibility criteria of the School for the Blind
28 U.S.C. § 1291 provides: "The courts of appeals ... shall have jurisdiction of appeals from all final decisions of the district courts of the United States ... except where a direct review may be had in the Supreme Court." See also McLish v. Roff, 141 U.S. 661, 12 S. Ct. 118, 35 L. Ed. 893 (1891) (recognizing need for final judgment rule prior to enactment of statutory basis for same)
We note that jurisdiction cannot be predicated upon the purported "practical finality exception," for it is more chimerical than real. In Gillespie v. United States Steel Corp., 379 U.S. 148, 85 S. Ct. 308, 13 L. Ed. 2d 199 (1964), the Supreme Court did not develop a formal exception to the final judgment rule; instead, it "applied a practical test in deciding whether the practical finality requirement was satisfied" on the facts of the particular case before it. Robert M. v. Benton, 622 F.2d 370, 372 n. 2 (8th Cir. 1980). See also Coopers & Lybrand v. Livesay, 437 U.S. 463, 477 n. 30, 98 S. Ct. 2454, 2462 n. 30, 57 L. Ed. 2d 351 (1978)
The three-pronged test for collateral orders appealable prior to final judgment that was identified in Coopers & Lybrand v. Livesay, and repeated in Firestone Tire and Rubber v. Risjord, is virtually a restatement of the test enunciated in Cohen. See Firestone Tire and Rubber Co. v. Risjord, 449 U.S. 368, 375, 101 S. Ct. 669, 674, 66 L. Ed. 2d 571 (1981) (quoting Coopers & Lybrand v. Livesay, 437 U.S. 463, 468, 98 S. Ct. 2454, 2458, 57 L. Ed. 2d 351 (1978)) (order "must conclusively determine the disputed question, resolve an important issue completely separate from the merits of the action, and be effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment")
Carson's additional requirement that appellant show an immediate threat of irreparable injury or serious consequences only applies to orders which do not explicitly grant, deny or modify an injunction but which nevertheless have a practical effect on the availability of injunctive relief. Orders which explicitly grant, deny or modify an injunction remain appealable "as of right, right away." Kerrville Bus Co., Inc., 925 F.2d at 132 (citing Atwood Turnkey Drilling, Inc. v. Petroleo Brasileiro, S.A., 875 F.2d 1174, 1176 (5th Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 1075, 110 S. Ct. 1124, 107 L. Ed. 2d 1030 (1990))
Plaintiff argues that in order to review the February Order, we need not find a threat of irreparable injury, if we find that the February Order effectively grants or denies an injunction "affect [ing] predominantly all of the merits of the case" (emphasis added). Although several other circuits appear to accept that argument, see, e.g., I.A.M. Nat'l Pension Fund Benefit Plan A v. Cooper Industries, Inc., 789 F.2d 21, 24 n. 3 (D.C. Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 971, 107 S. Ct. 473, 93 L. Ed. 2d 417 (1986); Center for Nat'l Security Studies v. CIA, 711 F.2d 409, 412-13 (D.C. Cir. 1983) (collecting cases); see also Tokarcik v. Forest Hills School Dist., 665 F.2d 443, 447 (3d Cir. 1981), cert. denied, Scanlon v. Tokarcik, 458 U.S. 1121, 102 S. Ct. 3508, 73 L. Ed. 2d 1383 (1982), it does not appear to be the rule in this circuit. See Kerrville Bus Co., 925 F.2d at 132. In any case, because we find that the February Order does present a threat of irreparable injury to plaintiff, we need not reach this question. Still, we note that the February Order does not affect "predominantly all the merits," because while it addresses the question of Sherri's placement, it makes only a preliminary finding as to plaintiff's challenge to the School for the Blind's eligibility criteria, and leaves yet other claims made by plaintiff wholly unaddressed.
Neither delay nor increased cost of litigation alone will suffice to show irreparable harm. Irreparable harm is "greater than the harm suffered by any litigant forced to wait until the termination of the [proceedings] before challenging interlocutory orders it considers erroneous." Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Risjord, 449 U.S. 368, 378-79 n. 13, 101 S. Ct. 669, 675-76 n. 13, 66 L. Ed. 2d 571 (1981). See also I.A.M. Nat'l Pension Fund Benefit Plan A v. Cooper Industries, Inc., 789 F.2d 21, 24-25 (D.C. Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 971, 107 S. Ct. 473, 93 L. Ed. 2d 417 (1986)
An order which "merely limits the scope of the relief that may ultimately be granted.... [w]hile it may have a significant effect on the litigation ... is not for that reason converted into [an injunction]." Gardner v. Westinghouse Broadcasting Co., 437 U.S. 478, 481, 98 S. Ct. 2451, 2454, 57 L. Ed. 2d 364 (1978) (quoting Morgantown v. Royal Insurance Co., 337 U.S. 254, 258, 69 S. Ct. 1067, 1069, 93 L. Ed. 1347 (1949))
To come within the exception to the final judgment rule for certain "final collateral orders," the order "must conclusively determine the disputed question, resolve an important issue completely separate from the merits of the action, and be effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment." Firestone Tire and Rubber Co. v. Risjord, 449 U.S. 368, 375, 101 S. Ct. 669, 674, 66 L. Ed. 2d 571 (1981) (quoting Coopers & Lybrand v. Livesay, 437 U.S. 463, 468, 98 S. Ct. 2454, 2458, 57 L. Ed. 2d 351 (1978)). The magistrate judge's preliminary finding that the eligibility criteria are lawful, even if separable from the merits, is by definition not conclusive. The contempt proceedings, the denial of class certification and the appointment of a guardian ad litem should be reviewable on appeal from a final judgment
Plaintiffs argue that the approach of Sherri's twenty-second birthday makes denial of class certification a potential death knell to the claims of the class. Presumably that is because Sherri's individual challenge to the School for the Blind's eligibility criteria may be, or may soon become, moot. However, if it is later determined that class certification was improperly denied, the claims of the class may continue to be pressed even if Sherri's own claims are moot. See, e.g., United States Parole Comm'n v. Geraghty, 445 U.S. 388, 404, 100 S. Ct. 1202, 1212, 63 L. Ed. 2d 479 (1980) (despite fact that class action was never certified and named plaintiff's own claims were rendered moot pending appeal, the questions of class certification and class claims could still be appealed)
20 U.S.C. § 1415(e) (3) provides:
In cases referred by a district judge to a magistrate for decision with consent of the parties under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), the standard of review of findings of fact is the same standard applied to district judges. In Archambault v. United Computing Systems, 695 F.2d 551, 551 (11th Cir. 1983), the court noted that where a magistrate serves as special master with consent of the parties under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) (2), " [t]he findings of the special master are entitled to the same deference as those of the typical factfinder." In the case before us, the parties consented to trial and decision by a magistrate, under § 636(c), making the factfinder even more like a district judge than the special master in Archambault. See also Proctor v. North Carolina, 830 F.2d 514, 517 (4th Cir. 1987) (review of magistrate judge's fact-finding is governed by "clearly erroneous" standard); see generally 1 Steven A. Childress and Martha S. Davis Standards of Review 33-34 (1986) (discussing standards of review applicable to findings of magistrates acting in different capacities and concluding that "whether a magistrate receives clear error deference or a de novo determination hinges on the basis of the referral and, more generally ... on "the extent to which the magistrate approaches the exercise of ultimate judicial authority." " [citation omitted]