Fagan v. Mass. Mutual Life Investors' Services, Inc. et al

Filing 7

Judge Michael A. Ponsor: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER entered. As follows: For the reasons stated. the court hereby ADOPTS Judge Robertsons Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 5 ). Based upon this, the complaint is ordered DISMISSED. This case may now be closed. It is So Ordered. See the attached memo and order for complete details. (Lindsay, Maurice)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS RICHARD B. FAGAN, Plaintiff, v. MASS MUTUAL LIFE INVESTORS’ SERVICES, INC., ET AL., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) C.A. No. 15-cv-30049-MAP MEMORANDUM AND ORDER REGARDING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION FOR SUMMARY DISMISSAL (Dkt. Nos. 2 & 5) June 10, 2015 PONSOR, U.S.D.J. This complaint contains an application to proceed in forma pauperis and was therefore preliminarily screened by Magistrate Judge Katherine A. Robertson. On April 24, 2015, Judge Robertson recommended that the application to proceed in forma pauperis be approved, based on Plaintiff’s limited resources, but that the complaint be dismissed for failure to comply with the one-year limitation contained in Fed. R. Civ. P. 60 and, in addition, based upon the doctrines of claim preclusion and absence of jurisdiction. On May 8, 2015, Plaintiff filed his objection. (Dkt. No. 5.) (Dkt. No. 6.) Having reviewed the Report and Recommendation de novo, this court will adopt it and will dismiss the complaint. is unnecessary, in light of the very scrupulous factual It recitation and legal analysis contained in the Report and Recommendation, to outline in lengthy detail this court’s reasoning. The anchor of the court’s decision is on three points. First, Judge Robertson is quite correct that the oneyear limit set forth in Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c)(1) is an absolute bar to reopening in this case. As Judge Robertson notes, the court’s final judgment entered on June 11, 2013, and the complaint in the current case was not filed until more than eighteen months later. Moreover, a review of the pleading in this case makes it clear that, with minor exceptions, it simply repeats the allegations contained in the earlier-filed lawsuit. As Judge Robertson notes, this court granted summary judgment in that case, and this court’s ruling was affirmed by the First Circuit. Finally, with regard to the only two claims that are not fatally flawed based upon the Rule 60 one-year limitation or for claim preclusion, the court simply lacks subject matter jurisdiction. For the foregoing reasons, the court hereby ADOPTS Judge Robertson’s Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 5). Based upon this, the complaint is ordered DISMISSED. case may now be closed. 2 This It is So Ordered. /s/ Michael A. Ponsor MICHAEL A. PONSOR U. S. District Judge 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?