Jones et al v. Paquette et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
VIRGINIA JONES and DWIGHT HALLET,
Plaintiffs,
v.
MICHAEL PAQUETTE, et al.,
Defendants.
Civil Action No. 25-30100-MGM
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER REGARDING
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF DISMISSAL
(Dkt. No. 4)
January 8, 2026
MASTROIANNI, U.S.D.J.
On May 23, 2025, Plaintiffs, Virginia Jones and Dwight Hallett, filed their complaint and a
motion to proceed in forma pauperis. (Dkt. Nos. 1, 2.) In their complaint, they alleged three employees
of a car dealership located in Northampton, Massachusetts deceived them into purchasing a vehicle
they did not select and financing it on unfavorable terms. The case was randomly assigned to United
States Magistrate Judge Katherine Robertson and, on December 19, 2025, she granted the motion
for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and ordered the case be reassigned for disposition in the
absence of consent by all parties to her jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). Judge Robertson
also recommended the receiving judge dismiss the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The
R&R informed Plaintiffs that they had fourteen days from service of the R&R to file written
objections. A copy of the R&R was mailed to Plaintiff on December 19, 2025 and objections were
due within fourteen days of service. As of the date of this order, Plaintiffs have not filed any
Case 3:25-cv-30100-MGM Document 8 Filed 01/08/26 Page 1 of 2

2
objections to the R&R.1 The court has reviewed the R&R, as well as the Complaint, and agrees with
Judge Robertson’s analysis that the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ claims.
As Judge Robertson explained in her Order for Reassignment and Recommendation of
Dismissal (“R&R”), federal courts have limited jurisdiction, and this court can only hear cases over
which it has subject matter jurisdiction. United States v. Univ. of Mass. Worcester, 812 F.3d 35, 44 (1st
Cir. 2016). This court has subject matter jurisdiction over cases arising under federal laws and
involving citizens of “diverse” states, where the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. Plaintiffs
have cited federal laws in their complaint, but those laws do not provide a basis for relief given the
facts alleged. Employees of a private car dealership do not act “under color of state law,” as required
for a claim brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and private individuals cannot bring civil claims
under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341 and 1343, federal laws criminalizing mail and wire fraud. Additionally,
Plaintiffs are both citizens of Massachusetts and, based on the alleged facts, it appears that most, or
all, of the named defendants are also Massachusetts citizens.
For these reasons, and in the absence of any objections, the court hereby ADOPTS Judge
Robertson’s R&R (Dkt. No. 4) accordingly, this case is DISMISSED for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction. This case may now be closed.
It is So Ordered.
_/s/ Mark G. Mastroianni________
MARK G. MASTROIANNI
United States District Judge
1 Service of the R&R was complete when the R&R was mailed to Plaintiff. Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(b)(2)(C). Because
service was made by mail, three additional days were added to the fourteen-day period for filing objections
and Plaintiff’s objections were due on January 5, 2025. Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d).
Case 3:25-cv-30100-MGM Document 8 Filed 01/08/26 Page 2 of 2