Thomas v. Beachwood City School District Board of Education

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
TIFFANY THOMAS,
Plaintiff,
BEACHWOOD CITY SCHOOL
DISTRICT BOARD OF EDUCATION,
Defendant.
CASE NO. 1:25-CV-02167
JUDGE DONALD C. NUGENT
MEMORANDUM OF OPINION AND
ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE
JUDGE'S REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION, AND ORDER
RELATED TO MAGISTRATE
JUDGE'S RULING ON PLAINTIFF'S
MOTION TO FILE SECOND
AMENDED COMPLAINT
This matter is before the Court upon the May 19,2026 Report and Recommendation of
Magistrate Judge James E. Grimes, Jr., (ECF #59), recommending that this Court grant
Defendant Beachwood City School District Board of Education's Motion for Judgment on the
Pleadings (ECF #42).
This matter is also before the Court upon the Magistrate Judge's Memorandum of
Opinion and Order (ECF #60) denying Plaintiff Tiffany Thomas' Motion for Leave to File a
Second Amended Complaint and to Treat it as Plaintiff's Response to Defendant's Motion to
Dismiss (or, in the Alternative, Opposition to Motion to Dismiss) (ECF #52), also issued on May
19,2026.1
The Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (ECF #59) is before this Court
pursuant to the procedures set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and (C), related to referral of
Case: 1:25-cv-02167-DCN Doc #: 66 Filed: 06/23/26 1 of 7. PageID #: <pageID>

The Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (ECF #59), related to Defendant
Beachwood City School District Board of Education's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings
(ECF #42), is hereby ADOPTED in its entirety, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
72(b).
The Magistrate Judge's accompanying Memorandum of Opinion and Order (ECF #60),
ruling on Plaintiff Tiffany Thomas's Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint and
to Treat it as Plaintiffs Response to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (or, in the Alternative,
Opposition to Motion to Dismiss) (ECF #52), is approved and incorporated in this Memorandum
of Opinion and Order adopting the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, as it is
neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law, and thus is not subject to modification or setting
aside, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a).
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On October 9,2025, Plaintiff Tiffany Thomas filed a four-count complaint against the
Beachwood City School District Board of Education alleging claims concerning the Board's
institution of a "communication protocol" related to Plaintiff Thomas's communications with
school officials about her child, "C.A.," who, according to the Verified Complaintfor
Defendant Beachwood City School District Board of Education's Motion for Judgment on the
Pleadings (ECF #42). On the same date, the Magistrate Judge issued an independent
Memorandum of Opinion ruling (ECF #60), pursuant to this Court's referral of matters to the
Magistrate Judge to hear and make determinative rulings under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), on
Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint (ECF #52). Because the two
filings by the Magistrate Judge - the Report and Recommendation (ECF #59) and the
Memorandum of Opinion and Order (ECF #60) - are so closely-related, and essentially
intertwined, it makes sense for this Court to address both filings in this single Memorandum of
Opinion and Order.
-2-
Case: 1:25-cv-02167-DCN Doc #: 66 Filed: 06/23/26 2 of 7. PageID #: <pageID>

Declaratory and Injunctive Relief (ECF #1), is 12-years-old, enrolled at Beachwood Middle
School, and is autistic, non-verbal, and "cognitively delayed." (ECF #1, p.2). The counts of her
Verified Complaint alleged: the denial of a "free appropriate public education" under the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1400, etseq., "[b]y preventing [Plaintiff
Thomas'] meaningful participation in [C.A.'s] IE? [individualized education program] and
witholding service information," (Count One); "Disability Discrimination (Section 504
ADA)," referring to Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794, and the Americans
with Disabilities Act of 1990,42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 through 12213 (Cormt Two); retaliation under
the ADA, Section 504, and the First Amendment (Coimt Three); and violation of the First
Amendment generally (Coimt Four). (ECF #1, Verified Complaint, p.3).
This case has had a rather convoluted procedural history since the filing of the Verified
Complaint, including Plaintiffs failure to attend a case management conference,^ a "show cause"
hearing based on that failure, the briefing and responses to the Board of Education's Motion for
Judgment on the Pleadings (ECF #42) and Plaintiff Thomas's various motions to amend her
Verified Complaint {See ECF #32 [Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint^, ECF #47
[Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint'], ECF #52 [Motion for Leave to File a
Second Amended Complaint and to Treat it as Plaintiffs Response to Defendant's Motion to
Dismiss (or, in the Alternative, Opposition to Motion to Dismiss^, and a number of other
discovery and procedural matters and motions. With respect to the filings now before this Court,
Plaintiff Thomas is unrepresented, is not an attorney, and is proceeding pro se. Her
standing to "represent" her son, C.A., and to pursue claims on his behalf, is an issue raised in the
Board of Education's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, and addressed in the Report and
Recommendation. This fact is mentioned here in the context of noting that Plaintiff Thomas had
an individual obligation to attend the Case Management Conference.
-3-
Case: 1:25-cv-02167-DCN Doc #: 66 Filed: 06/23/26 3 of 7. PageID #: <pageID>

the opening paragraphs of the Report and Recommendation (ECF #59) place this matter in
context:
In October 2025, Plaintiff Tiffany Thomas filed a four-count Complaint
against Defendant Beachwood City School District Board of Education
alleging claims concerning the Board's institution of a "communication
protocol" related to Thomas's communications with school officials about
her child. After she failed to attend the case management conference, the
Court ordered her to appear for a show cause hearing on January 28,2026.
On January 27,2026, Thomas filed a motion for leave to file a first
amended complaint. The next day, the Coiirt determined at the show
cause hearing that Thomas had shown cause for her failure to attend the
case management conference.
A few weeks later, the Board filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings,
and an opposition to Thomas's motion to file a first amended complaint.
Thomas next moved for leave to file a second amended complaint. In light
of Thomas's motion to file a second amended complaint, the Court denied
as moot her motion to file a first amended complaint.
After the Board opposed Thomas's motion to file a second amended
complaint, Thomas filed a reply, and a document styled as a motion for
leave to file a second amended complaint - not to be confused with her
earlier motion for leave to file a second amended complaint - and to treat
Thomas's earlier motion for leave as her response to the Board's motion to
dismiss.
In short, the Court has to adjudicate the Board's motion for judgment on
the pleadings, and Thomas's motion for leave to file a second amended
complaint[.] Because the Court ultimately recommends granting the
Board's motion and has determined that Thomas's motion should be
denied, the Court has determined that the best course is to address the
Board's motion for judgment on the pleadings in this report and
recommendation and to deal with Thomas's motion for leave to file a
second amended complaint in a contemporaneously filed accompanying
order.
(ECF #59, Report and Recommendation, pp. 1-2) (internal record citations omitted).
On May 19,2026, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation
recommending that this Court grant the Beachwood City School District Board of Education's
-4-
Case: 1:25-cv-02167-DCN Doc #: 66 Filed: 06/23/26 4 of 7. PageID #: <pageID>

Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (ECF #59), along with a Memorandum of Opinion and
Order (ECF #60) denying Plaintiff Tiffany Thomas's Motion for Leave to File a Second
Amended Complaint and to Treat it as Plaintiff's Response to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss
(or, in the Alternative, Opposition to Motion to Dismiss) (ECF #60).
Because objections were filed with respect to the Report and Recommendation, as well as
to the Magistrate Judge's Memorandum of Opinion and Order, this Court engages va.a.de novo
standard of review of the Report and Recommendation, and a "clearly erroneous or contrary to
law" standard of review in connection with the Memorandum of Opinion and Order.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
The applicable standard of review of a magistrate judge's report and recommendation
depends upon whether objections were made to the report and recommendation. When
objections are made to the magistrate judge's report and recommendation, the district court
reviews the case de novo. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). When no timely objection is filed, "the court
need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the
recommendation." Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 Advisory Committee Notes (citations omitted). See also
Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140,150 (1985) ("It does not appear that Congress intended to require
district court review of a magistrate judge's factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any
other standard, when neither party objects to those findings.") (on certiorari from the Sixth
Circuit).
With respect to a magistrate judge's memorandum of opinion and order related to a non-
dispositive matter that has been referred under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 72(a) applies:
-5-
Case: 1:25-cv-02167-DCN Doc #: 66 Filed: 06/23/26 5 of 7. PageID #: <pageID>

When a pretrial matter not dispositive of a party's claim or defense is
referred to a magistrate judge to hear and decide, the magistrate judge
must promptly conduct the required proceedings and, when appropriate,
issue a written order stating the decision. A party may serve and file
objections to the order within 14 days after being served with a copy....
The district judge in the case must consider timely objections and modify
or set aside any part of the order that is clearly erroneous or is contrary to
law.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a).
CONCLUSION
The Court has carefully reviewed the Report and Recommendation (ECF #59) of
Magistrate Judge Grimes, as well as Plaintiff Thomas's Objections to Report and
Recommendation, (ECF #62), and agrees with the findings set forth in the Report and
Recommendation (ECF #59). Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge
Grimes (ECF #59) is ADOPTED in its entirety pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
72(b).
The Court has also reviewed the Magistrate Judge's ruling (ECF #60) denying Plaintiffs
Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint and to Treat it as Plaintiff's Response to
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (or, in the Alternative, Opposition to Motion to Dismiss), (ECF
#60), agrees with its findings and approves of its disposition, and hereby incorporates that
agreement and approval in its adoption of the Report and Recommendation. The Court finds that
the Magistrate Judge's Memorandum of Opinion and Order is thorough, well-supported, and in
accord with applicable law. It is neither clearly erroneous, nor contrary to law, and therefore
does not warrant modification or setting aside under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a).
Accordingly, Defendant Beachwood City School District Board of Education's Motion
-6-
Case: 1:25-cv-02167-DCN Doc #: 66 Filed: 06/23/26 6 of 7. PageID #: <pageID>

for Judgment on the Pleadings (ECF #42) is GRANTED, and the case is DISMISSED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
1DONALD C. NUGENT
United States District Judge
DATED:
1
^3 1 0 ^
Case: 1:25-cv-02167-DCN Doc #: 66 Filed: 06/23/26 7 of 7. PageID #: <pageID>