With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". to prevent that harm.” Horton v. Flenory, 889 F.2d 454, 457 (3d Cir.1989); see also Morrow, 719 F.3d at 166 (stating, as “a general matter, ... a State’s failure to protect an individual against private violence simply does not constitute a violation of the Due Process Clause”) (quotingDeShaney). Relying on the above-cited case law and the facts in this matter, this Court finds that Defendant has no constitutional obligation to prevent private student-on-student or trespasser-on-student violence. However, our anal t has repeatedly held that publicly-funded schools, such as Defendant, do not have a special relationship with their students that would create “a constitutional duty to protect students from private actors.” Morrow, 719 F.3d at 170; see also D.R., 972 F.2d at 1369-72 (<HOLDING>); Brown v. School District of Philadelphia, 456

A: holding special relationship existed between caregiver and developmentally disabled individual
B: holding that no special relationship exists between state and school children despite compulsory attendance laws
C: holding that a school had no duty to protect pedestrian from student
D: holding that no special relationship existed between the school and student
D.