Thomas

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

TIFFANY THOMAS, ) CASENO. 1:25-CV-02167

)

Plaintiff, ) JUDGE DONALD C. NUGENT

)

Vv. )

)

BEACHWOOD CITY SCHOOL ) MEMORANDUM OF OPINION AND

DISTRICT BOARD OF EDUCATION, ) ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE

) JUDGE’S REPORT AND

Defendant. ) 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.'

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

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 Plaintiff's 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 Complaint for

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-

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, et seq., “[b]y preventing [Plaintiff

Thomas’ meaningful participation in [C.A.’s] IEP [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 (Count Two); retaliation under

the ADA, Section 504, and the First Amendment (Count Three); and violation of the First

Amendment generally (Count Four). (ECF #1, Verified Complaint, p.3).

This case has had a rather convoluted procedural history since the filing of the Verified

Complaint, including Plaintiff's 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 Plaintiff's 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-

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 Court 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-

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 in 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 vy. 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-

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 □□□□□□□□□□□

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-

for Judgment on the Pleadings (ECF #42) is GRANTED, and the case is DISMISSED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DONALD C. fiat

United States District Judge

DATED: L 0 Lb

af