WHITMAN KNAPP, Senior United States District Judge.
On February 8, 2000 we referred this case to Magistrate Judge James C. Francis IV for the purposes of overseeing discovery and issuing a Report and Recommendation on the pending dispositive motions. On January 30, 2001 Magistrate Judge Francis issued a Report and Recommendation (the "Report") advising us: (1) to deny plaintiffs' motion for class certification; (2) to deny defendants' motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust administrative remedies; and (3) to deny without prejudice the motion of the New York State Education Department and Commissioner Mills (collectively the "State Defendants") to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action and lack of subject matter jurisdiction and to "allow the plaintiffs to amend their complaint to take into account the changed circumstances." Adrian R. ex rel. Esther D. v. New York City Board of Educ. (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 30, 2001) 2001 WL 77066 at *6.
After having reviewed and considered the Report, we adopt it with the exception of its recommendation to deny without prejudice the State Defendants' motion to dismiss and to allow plaintiffs to amend their complaint. For the reasons that follow, we grant the State Defendants' motion to dismiss and deny plaintiffs the opportunity to amend the complaint as to these defendants.
Even if plaintiffs filed an amended complaint upon which we were to ultimately grant them their requested relief, the New York City Board of Education and Rudolf F. Crew as its Chancellor (the "City Defendants"), not the State Defendants, would provide them with such relief. As Judge Charles L. Brieant recently noted in a Memorandum Order dated December 11, 2000:
The responsibility for developing and implementing a plan to provide individualized educational services is placed upon the local school districts, not the State. See
20 U.S.C. § 1412-1414; Smith v. Robinson,
468 U.S. 992, 1011 (1984). Here, the Board of Education was responsible for providing services to Plaintiff and allegedly failed to do so. Since this Court can order the Board of Education to provide Plaintiff with the requested educational services, the State Defendants are not necessary to this action. If Plaintiffs prevail in this action, they can obtain complete relief from the local Board of Education.
Lohrke v. Washingtonville Cent. Sch. Dist. (S.D.N.Y. 2000) 00 Civ. 5311 at *7 — 8; see also Yamen by Yamen v. Board of Educ. Of Arlington Cent. School Dist. (S.D.N Y 1996) 909 F. Supp. 207. 210-11 (granting state defendants' motion to dismiss where plaintiff failed to allege the New York State Department of Education and its Commissioner systemically violated state and federal law).
Plaintiffs urge us to follow Jose P. v. Ambach (2d Cir. 1982) 669 F.2d 865, holding that New York State defendants could be held liable for general supervisory violations. However, that case was a class action where the State Education Commissioner conceded in writing that he had failed to meet his statutory duties. This case is distinguishable for the reasons that cause us to adopt the Report's recommendation denying class certification and there is no concession, in writing or otherwise, by the State Defendants. See Mr. Mrs. "B", o/b/o "C.B." v. Board of Educ. of Syosset School Dist. (E.D.N.Y Jan. 15, 1998) 1998 WL 273025 at *4.
CONCLUSION
We adopt the Report with the exception that we grant the State Defendants' motion to dismiss and deny plaintiffs the opportunity to amend the complaint as to these defendants.
SO ORDERED.