Case Name: PHOUNG C., as Next Friend of Z.C., Plaintiff-Appellant v. KILLEEN INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-10-20
Citations: 619 F. App'x 398
Docket Number: No. 15-50204
Parties: PHOUNG C., as Next Friend of Z.C., Plaintiff-Appellant v. KILLEEN INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 619
Pages: 398–398

Head Matter:
PHOUNG C., as Next Friend of Z.C., Plaintiff-Appellant v. KILLEEN INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 15-50204.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Oct. 20, 2015.
Yvonnilda Garza Muniz, Attorney, Austin, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Dennis J. Eichelbaum, Andrea L. Mooney, Eichelbaum Wardell Hansen Powell & Mehl, P.C., Plano, TX, Holly B. Wardell, Eichelbaum Wardell Hansen Powell & Mehl, P.C., Austin, TX, for Defendant Appellee.
Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
The appellant, minor child Z.C. by next friend, Phoung C., seeks reimbursement from the Killeen Independent School District (KISD) for her unilateral choice to withdraw Z.C. from KISD and enroll her in a private school. Phoung C. contends that the public school failed to provide Z.C. with a Free and Adequate Public Education (FAPE), and that under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), she is therefore entitled to the cost of private education.
Phoung C. first filed for a due process hearing with a due process Hearing Officer (H.O.), who determined that KISD had provided Z.C. with a FAPE. After Phoung C. sought review in the district court, KISD moved for and obtained summary judgment affirming the H.O.'s decision. Phoung C. appeals that judgment here.
We have reviewed the briefs and applicable law and have consulted the pertinent portions of the record, including the hearing officer's comprehensive review of the facts. We have also heard the helpful oral arguments of counsel. There is no reversible error. The summary judgment is AFFIRMED, essentially for the reasons given by the district court.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.