Smith v. Woolson et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
TERRY SMITH,
Plaintiff,
v.
PAUL SELAMAR WOOLSON, et al.,
Defendants.
No. 25-cv-12071-JDH
ORDER FOR REASSIGNMENT AND REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
HEDGES, M.J.
I. 	BACKGROUND
On July 23, 2025, the Court received Terry Smith’s complaint. Docket No. 1. 1 Mr.
Smith, who is self-represented, invokes this Court’s federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1331 and brings this action against Paul Selamar Woolson, Chris Donavan, Steve Woolson,
and Frank White Woolson. Docket No. 1 at 2-3. Mr. Smith alleges that his neighbors stalked,
harassed, and otherwise mistreated him, and that when he reported his neighbors’ actions to the
police, the police violated his civil rights. Docket No. 1 at 3-4; Docket No. 1-1 at 1-5.
On January 16, 2026, I issued an order, nothing that even under the generous review
standard afforded to pro se litigants, see Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972), Mr.
Smith’s complaint fails to establish a sufficient basis for this Court to exercise subject matter
jurisdiction. See generally Docket No. 4. Accordingly, I ordered Mr. Smith to file an amended
1 The Clerk opened a civil action, and the case was assigned pursuant to the Court’s Program for
Random Assignment of Civil Cases to Magistrate Judges. Docket No. 3.
Case 1:25-cv-12071-LTS Document 7 Filed 02/17/26 Page 1 of 2	Case 1:25-cv-12071-LTS Document 10 Filed 03/11/26 Page 1 of 2

2
complaint within twenty-eight days, setting forth a claim over which the Court has subject matter
jurisdiction. Id. at 8. I advised that failure to comply with the order may result in dismissal of
the action. Id.
On February 5, 2026, Mr. Smith filed a 63-page document titled “Evidence.” Docket No.
6. This document contains additional accounts of harassment by neighbors, as well as medical
records. Docket No. 6-1. The document does not, however, purport to contain an amended
complaint or to correct the jurisdictional deficiencies identified in the January 16 order. 	Id. The
deadline for Mr. Smith to file an amended complaint has now passed, and he has not done so.
II. 	ORDER
I direct the case to be returned to the Clerk’s Office for REASSIGNMENT to a District
Judge for further proceedings.
III. 	RECOMMENDATION
For the reasons set forth above, I RECOMMEND that the District Judge DISMISS this
action pursuant to Rule 12(h)(3) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.2
SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 17, 2026 	/s/ Jessica D. Hedges
United States Magistrate Judge
2 The parties are advised that under the provisions of Federal Rule Civil Procedure 72(b), any
party who objects to these findings and recommendations must file a written objection with the
Clerk of this Court within fourteen days of service of this Report and Recommendation. The
written objection must specifically identify the portion of the proposed findings or
recommendations to which objection is made and the basis for such objection. The parties are
further advised that failure to comply with this rule shall preclude further appellate review by the
Court of Appeals of the District Court order entered pursuant to this Report and
Recommendation. See Santos-Santos v. Torres-Centeno, 842 F.3d 163, 168 (1st Cir. 2016); see
also Keating v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 848 F.2d 271, 275 (1st Cir.1988). A party may
respond to another party’s objections within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy
thereof. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).
Case 1:25-cv-12071-LTS Document 7 Filed 02/17/26 Page 2 of 2	Case 1:25-cv-12071-LTS Document 10 Filed 03/11/26 Page 2 of 2