Decision  Canuto, Adelino v. Boston Police Department 6/25/26

Date:	06/25/2026
Organization:	Civil Service Commission
Docket Number:	G1-26-085

• Appearance for Appellant: James W. Gilden, Esq.
• Appearance for Respondent: Robert S. Arcangeli, Esq.
• Hearing Officer: Christopher C. Bowman

The Commission dismissed the bypass appeal of a candidate for Boston police officer as the Commission recently upheld a prior bypass by the Boston Police Department based on the same reasons.

Decision on Respondent's Motion to Dismiss

CSC Law Clerk Jack Moses assisted with the drafting of this decision. 

Pursuant to G.L. c. 31, § 2(b), the Appellant, Adelino Canuto (Appellant), filed a timely appeal to the Civil Service Commission (Commission) contesting the June 2, 2026, decision of the Boston Police Department (Respondent or Department) to bypass him for original appointment to the position of permanent full-time police officer. The Department based its decision on the Appellant’s poor judgment. The Commission held a pre-hearing conference on June 9, 2026 via videoconference. After careful review of the parties’ submissions, the Department’s Motion to Dismiss is allowed and the Appellant’s appeal is dismissed. 

Undisputed Facts

Prior Bypass Appeal

1. On March 18, 2022, the Appellant took the civil service examination for the position of permanent full time police officer.
2. On June 1, 2022, the state’s Human Resources Division (HRD) established an eligible list for Boston Police Officer.
3. Between September 2022 and January 2023, HRD issued certification #08848 to the Department, from which it could fill vacancies from the top candidates willing to accept conditional employment. The Appellant was ranked 87^th on the certification.
4. The Department notified the Appellant that he had been bypassed in an August 25, 2023 letter, enclosing his appeal rights.
5. The August 25, 2023 bypass letter mentioned one primary reason for the Appellant’s bypass: the Appellant’s judgment regarding an August 9, 2019 incident in which the Appellant failed to immediately disclose to the Boston Police Department that his stolen vehicle contained a firearm inside.
6. After the incident, the BPD’s Licensing Unit suspended the Appellant’s License-to-Carry (LTC). When the Appellant reapplied for his LTC, it was denied because of the incident on August 9, 2019.
7. On July 25, 2024, the Commission issued a decision affirming the Department’s decision to bypass the Appellant.
8. In the July 25, 2024 decision, the Commission found that the Appellant failed to mention that there was a firearm in his stolen vehicle in his first contact with law enforcement personnel. The Commission additionally did not credit the Appellant’s explanation that he informed the first 911 operator that there was a firearm in the vehicle.
9. Since the Commission’s decision on July 25, 2024, the Appellant’s LTC has been reinstated.

Current Bypass Appeal

10. On March 15, 2025, the Appellant took the civil service examination for the position of permanent full time police officer.
11. On June 1, 2025, HRD established an eligible list for Boston Police Officer.
12. On September 5, 2025, HRD issued certification #10772 to the Department, from which it could fill vacancies from the top candidates willing to accept conditional employment. The Appellant was ranked 66^th on the certification.
13. The Department notified the Appellant that he had been bypassed in a June 2, 2026 letter, enclosing his appeal rights.
14. The June 2, 2026 bypass letter referenced the same concerns with the Appellant’s judgment related to the August 9, 2019 incident. This bypass letter additionally noted the Commission’s finding that the Appellant’s “reporting of the firearm was not consistent with [the Appellant’s] statements at the hearing or with information provided during the recruit process.”
15. On April 8, 2026, the Appellant filed a timely appeal with the Commission.

Summary Disposition Standard

The Commission may, on motion or upon its own initiative, dismiss an appeal at any time for lack of jurisdiction or for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 801 CMR 5 1.01(7)(g)(3). A motion to resolve an appeal before the Commission, in whole or in part, via summary decision may be filed pursuant to 801 C.M.R. 1.01(7)(h). An appeal may be disposed of, however, on summary disposition only when, “viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party”, the undisputed material facts affirmatively demonstrate that the non-moving party has “no reasonable expectation” of prevailing on at least one “essential element of the case”.  See, e.g., Milliken & Co. v. Duro Textiles LLC, 451 Mass. 547, 550 n.6 (2008); Maimonides School v. Coles, 71 Mass. App. Ct. 240, 249 (2008); Lydon v. Massachusetts Parole Board, 18 MCSR 216 (2005).  See also Mangino v. HRD, 27 MCSR 34 (2014) and cases cited (“The notion underlying the summary decision process in administrative proceedings parallels the civil practice under Mass.R.Civ.P.56, namely, when no genuine issues of material fact exist, the agency is not required to conduct a meaningless hearing.”); Morehouse v. Weymouth Fire Dept, 26 MCSR 176 (2013) (“a party may move for summary decision when . . . there is no genuine issue of fact relating to his or her claim or defense and the party is entitled to prevail as a matter of law.”)

Analysis

                The undisputed facts, viewed in a light most favorable to the Appellant, establish that this appeal must be dismissed. 

                Here, the Commission issued a recent decision upholding the Department’s bypass of the Appellant for the same concerns with judgment mentioned in this June 2, 2026 bypass letter. The Commission determined, less than two years ago, that the Department’s bypass of the Appellant was justified as the Appellant did not exercise sound judgment by failing to report a weapon in his stolen vehicle. In this case, Appellant has not put forth new material information that would change the Commission’s decision regarding the validity of the bypass reasons reached by the Commission in a decision less than two years ago. SeeLima v. City of New Bedford, 33 MCSR 285 (2020) (Commission dismissed that appellant’s second bypass appeal as it had upheld same reasons in prior bypass decided by Commission months earlier); Reynolds v. City of Brockton, 37 MCSR 37 (2024).

                In his brief, the Appellant argues that seven years have passed since the August 9, 2019 incident. Yet, a significant amount of time has not passed from the Commission’s previous decision issued less than two years ago. More importantly, however, the Commission—as referenced in the June 2, 2026 bypass letter—found that the Appellant’s statements regarding the August 9, 2019 incident were not credible and did not match the evidence presented.

                Additionally, the Appellant argues that his LTC has since been reinstated at a date following his prior appeal. Yet, neither bypass letter mentions the suspension of the Appellant’s LTC as a reason for the Appellant’s bypass. This reinstatement does not materially alter the fact that the Appellant failed to report the presence of a firearm in his stolen vehicle. 

                Thus, the combination of a recent decision by the Commission justifying the Appellant’s bypass and the Commission’s determination that the Appellant was not credible in his statement of events shows that the Appellant has no reasonable expectation of prevailing in this bypass appeal.

Conclusion

For the reasons stated above, the Department’s Motion to Dismiss is allowed, and the Appellant’s appeal filed under G1-26-085 is hereby dismissed.

Civil Service Commission

/s/ Christopher Bowman

Christopher C. Bowman

Chairman

By vote of the Civil Service Commission (Bowman, Chair; Markey, McConney, and Stein [Dooley, absent], Commissioners) on June 25, 2026.

Either party may file a motion for reconsideration within ten days of receipt of this Commission order or decision. Under the pertinent provisions of the Code of Mass. Regulations, 801 C.M.R. § 1.01(7)(l), the motion must identify a clerical or mechanical error in this order or decision or a significant factor the Agency or the Presiding Officer may have overlooked in deciding the case.  A motion for reconsideration does not toll the statutorily prescribed thirty-day time limit for seeking judicial review of this Commission order or decision. 

Under the provisions of G.L c. 31, § 44, any party aggrieved by this Commission order or decision may initiate proceedings for judicial review under G.L. c. 30A, § 14 in the superior court within thirty (30) days after receipt of this order or decision. Commencement of such proceeding shall not, unless specifically ordered by the court, operate as a stay of this Commission order or decision.  After initiating proceedings for judicial review in Superior Court, the plaintiff, or his / her attorney, is required to serve a copy of the summons and complaint upon the Boston office of the Attorney General of the Commonwealth, with a copy to the Civil Service Commission, in the time and in the manner prescribed by Mass. R. Civ. P. 4(d). 

Notice to: 
James W. Gilden, Esq. (for Appellant)
Robert S. Arcangeli, Esq. (for Respondent)