Burns et al v. Bellingham Public Schools et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
WILLIAM BURNS, and SANDRA BURNS, on
behalf of their minor child, JANE DOE,
Plaintiffs,
v.
BELLINGHAM PUBLIC SCHOOLS, THE
TOWN OF BELLINGHAM, HESRICK
RICHARDS, GEENA RICHARDS, H.R., and
EDEL COLON, OSCAR COLON, and J.C.,
Defendants.
No. 25-cv-10275-GAO
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON MOTION
TO DISMISS BY DEFENDANTS HESRICK
RICHARDS, GEENA RICHARDS, H.R.
LEVENSON, U.S.M.J.
INTRODUCTION
On October 31, 2025, Defendants H. R., Geena Richards, and Hesrick Richards (the
“Richards Defendants”) moved for dismissal of all claims asserted by Plaintiffs William Burns
and Sandra Burns on behalf of their minor child, Jane Doe. Docket No. 43. On January 15, 2026,
the Richards Defendants filed a supplemental memorandum in support of their motion to
dismiss, stating additional grounds under which their claims should be dismissed. Docket No. 67.
Seven days later, Plaintiffs filed a stipulation of dismissal without prejudice as to the Richards
Defendants (Docket No 69), and the Richards Defendants were subsequently terminated as
Case 1:25-cv-10275-GAO Document 70 Filed 02/10/26 Page 1 of 3

2
Defendants in the matter.1 Judge O’Toole has referred this matter to me for report and
recommendation on dispositive motions. Docket No. 29.
More than fourteen days have elapsed since the filing of the Stipulation of Dismissal and
the termination of the Richards Defendants, and no objection has been filed as to either filing. In
the absence of any objection, I find that Plaintiffs’ dismissal of the claims against the Richards
Defendants renders the Richards Defendants’ pending motion to dismiss moot, and I recommend
that the Court deny it as such.
CONCLUSION
For the forgoing reasons, I recommend that the Court DENY AS MOOT the Richards
Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Docket No. 43).
/s/ Paul G. Levenson
Paul G. Levenson
U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Dated: February 10, 2026
1 Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure states that a Plaintiff may voluntarily dismiss
an action without a court order by filing “a stipulation of dismissal signed by all parties who
have appeared.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 41 (emphasis added). The stipulation of dismissal filed by
Plaintiffs was signed by Plaintiffs and the Richards Defendants only, and not by the other
defendants in the matter. See Docket No. 69. That said, no other party has objected to the
dismissal and the Court has terminated the Richards Defendants in the docket for this case.
Case 1:25-cv-10275-GAO Document 70 Filed 02/10/26 Page 2 of 3

3
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 Fed. R. Civ. P. 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-10275-GAO Document 70 Filed 02/10/26 Page 3 of 3