23. Specifically, the report and recommendation made the following legal determination, which neither the plaintiff nor defendant objected to: [I]t appears that no provision of the statute or regulations, by express terms, requires that an IEP include a determination of a student’s least restrictive environment and appropriate placement [along the continuum of placements]. However, the undersigned finds that the statute and regulations, read in context, in fact impose such requirement. 20 U.S.C. § 1414(d)(1)(A)(i)(V) (providing that an IEP must include “an explanation of the extent, if any, to which the child will not participate with nondisabled children in the regular class and in activities described in subclause (IV)(cc)[.]”); see also A.I. ex rel. Iapalucci, 402 F.Supp.2d at 159 (<HOLDING>). Report & Recommendation 12. Moreover, with
holding that pleading was insufficient where the plaintiff failed to among other things set forth the dates of any fraudulent statements holding that an iep must include among other things a statement regarding the childs ability to interact with nondisabled children holding that to be entitled to relief under rule 60b2 the moving party must show among other things that the newly discovered evidence is material holding individual defendant liable where he among other things made inquiries into the business obligations under the flsa holding a court must find among other things clear evidence of the existence of an oral agreement for part performance to remove the contract from the statute of frauds