Lettieri v. Displine Hearing Officer et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
DAVID C. LETTIERI,
Plaintiff,
v.
DISPLINE HEARING OFFICER., et al.,
Defendants.
No. 25-cv-12400-PGL
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION FOR DISMISSAL AND ORDER OF
REASSIGNMENT
LEVENSON, U.S.M.J.
On August 29, 2025, David C. Lettieri, who is confined at FMC Devens, filed a
complaint against 10 defendants concerning “an unlawful search and seizure that had happen[ed]
because of a false ticket that had placed the plaintiff in special housing unit for fifty-eight days in
which no dis[ci]pline segregation was issued.” Docket No. 1 at 2. On November 20, 2025, I
entered an Order (Docket No. 7) denying, without prejudice, Plaintiff’s Motion (Docket No. 2)
for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. That order notified Plaintiff that, in order to proceed with
this action, he must pay the $405 filing fee or show good cause why he should not be required to
do so within twenty-eight days. Docket No. 7. I further notified him that failure to do so may
result in dismissal of this action by a District Judge. Id.
On December 8, 2025, Plaintiff filed a second motion for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis (Docket No. 9), which I treated as a motion to reconsider and on December 10, 2025, I
denied the motion (Docket No. 11).
Case 1:25-cv-12400-JEK Document 13 Filed 12/22/25 Page 1 of 2

2
Twenty-eight days have passed, and to date, Plaintiff has not paid the filing fee. Nor has
he shown good cause why he should not be required to do so.
In accordance with the Court’s previous Memorandum and Order (Docket No. 7), I
RECOMMEND that this action be DISMISSED.
I ORDER the Clerk to reassign this case to a district judge for consideration of this
recommendation.
/s Paul G. Levenson
Paul G. Levenson
U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Dated: December 22, 2025
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO OBJECT
In accordance with Rule 3 of the Rules for United States Magistrate Judges in the United
States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, the parties are advised that under the
provisions of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) or Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure
59(b), any party who objects to these proposed findings and recommendations must file specific
written objections thereto with the Clerk of this Court within 14 days of the party’s receipt of this
Report and Recommendation. The written objections must specifically identify the portion of the
proposed findings, recommendations, or report to which objection is made and the basis for such
objections. The parties are further advised that the United States Court of Appeals for this Circuit
has repeatedly indicated that failure to comply with Rule 72(b) will preclude further appellate
review of the District Court’s order based on this Report and Recommendation. See Keating v.
Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 848 F.2d 271 (1st Cir. 1988); United States v. Emiliano
Valencia-Copete, 792 F.2d 4 (1st Cir. 1986); Park Motor Mart, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 616 F.2d
603 (1st Cir. 1980); United States v. Vega, 678 F.2d 376, 378-379 (1st Cir. 1982); Scott v.
Schweiker, 702 F.2d 13, 14 (1st Cir. 1983); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985).
Case 1:25-cv-12400-JEK Document 13 Filed 12/22/25 Page 2 of 2