Qualls

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE

AT GREENEVILLE

ERIKA QUALLS, as next friend

for Minor K.R., )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) 2:22-CV-58

)

HAWKINS BOARD OF EDUCATION, )

)

Defendant. )

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

On July 23, 2026, the Court held a status hearing on the Motion for Release of Settlement

Funds to K.R. [Doc. 130]. Counsel for Plaintiff Larry Crain appeared by video and Plaintiff Erika

Qualls was present via telephone. By way of background, during a hearing on May 28, 2026, the

Court addressed Plaintiff’s Motion, which stated that the requested settlement funds were to be

used for K.R.’s “educational needs, attorney’s fees, and court-approved disbursements. . ..” The

District Court’s Order approving the settlement [Doc. 127] provided that the funds should be

deposited in an interest-bearing account to be disbursed “solely for the educational needs of K.R.

with leave of Court.” Plaintiff’s Motion requested payment of the full amount of settlement funds,

which stand at approximately $110,000 plus interest accrued, for the purpose of paying tuition for

K.R. as well as boarding and transportation to and from Erskine College in South Carolina. During

the May 28, 2026, hearing, the Court determined that further information was necessary in order

for the Court to address Plaintiff’s Motion fully in a report and recommendation. Therefore, the

Court ordered Plaintiff to file a supplemental motion with additional information once that

information was available.

As no supplemental motion had been filed, the Court set the July 23, 2026, status hearing.

During the hearing, the Court requested an update on the status of the additional information.

Plaintiff advised that she had been shopping for a car for K.R. but was having difficulty because

every time they located a suitable vehicle, it sold before funds could be obtained to purchase it.

Plaintiff advised that she had been looking at vehicles in the price range of $16,000 to $20,000,

and that she had found suitable vehicles within that price range. Counsel agreed that it would be

possible for him to hold funds in his trust account, if the Court ordered funds to be disbursed to

that account, for the purchase of a vehicle for K.R., so that Plaintiff could purchase a suitable

vehicle as soon as she located one rather than having to wait for the longer Court-approval process.

Plaintiff also advised that educational fees for K.R. had come due and that she had been paying

for them out-of-pocket as they arose. K.R. is scheduled to move to campus in approximately two

weeks.

The Court ordered Plaintiff to file updated documentation of K.R.’s required college

tuition, room, board, books, fees, and other required expenses, including documentation of what

Plaintiff had paid on his behalf to-date. Plaintiff has now provided that additional information.

[Doc. 130].

The Court RECOMMENDS that the sum of $20,000 be released to be held in the trust

account of Plaintiff’s counsel to be used toward the purchase of a vehicle for K.R. so that he may

travel to and from school and travel locally while at school, in aid of his education. Should Plaintiff

be able to purchase a suitable vehicle for less than $20,000, and the excess funds be $2,000 or less,

the Court RECOMMENDS that the remaining funds be disbursed to K.R. for use toward

discretionary expenses incurred during his fall semester. Should the remaining funds exceed

$2,000, the Court RECOMMENDS that any funds over $2,000 be held in counsel’s trust account

pending a further order of the Court.

As to K.R.’s college expenses, the Court RECOMMENDS that Plaintiff Erika Qualls be

reimbursed in the amount of $427.10 for fees and expenses that she has advanced out-of-pocket to

Erskine College on behalf of K.R. The Court further recommends that the Clerk’s Office disburse

the sum of $14,305.00 to Erskine College at an address to be provided by Plaintiff’s counsel to the

Clerk’s Office for K.R.’s fall college expenses.

This Report and Recommendation is now presented to the District Court for its

consideration.1 Due to the time-sensitive nature of the requests made on behalf of K.R., Plaintiff

and her counsel were advised that should they have no objections to the undersigned’s

recommendations, they should so advise by filing a notice of no objections.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/Cynthia Richardson Wyrick

United States Magistrate Judge

1 Objections to this Report and Recommendation must be filed within 14 days after service of this

recommended disposition on the objecting party. 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). Such objections must

conform to the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); see United States v. Branch, 537 F.3d 582 (6th Cir. 2008); see

also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 155 (1985) (providing the failure to file objections in compliance with the time

period waives the right to appeal the District Court’s order). The District Court need not provide de novo review

where objections to this report and recommendation are frivolous, conclusive, or general. Mira v. Marshall, 806 F.2d

636, 637 (6th Cir. 1986). Only specific objections are reserved for appellate review. Smith v. Detroit Federation of

Teachers, 829 F.2d 1370, 1373 (6th Cir. 1987).