Decision  Crowley v. MTRS, CR-26-0223

Date:	09/18/2026
Organization:	Division of Administrative Law Appeals
Docket Number:	CR-26-0223

• Petitioner: Matthew Crowley
• Respondent: Massachusetts Teachers’ Retirement System
• Administrative Magistrate: Yakov Malkiel

Order of Dismissal

The petitioner appeals from a decision of the Massachusetts Teachers’ Retirement System (MTRS) excluding the petitioner from the benefits program known as Retirement Plus.  See G.L. c. 32, § 5(4).  MTRS has filed a motion to dismiss, which the petitioner has not opposed, despite being advised that failure to file an opposition would be construed as indicating the petitioner’s agreement with MTRS’s position. Compare Bray & Gillespie Mgmt. LLC v. Lexington Ins. Co., 527 F. Supp. 2d 1355, 1371 (M.D. Fla. 2007), with Jones v. Providence Pub. Sch., No. 23-1407, 2024 WL 1128034 (1st Cir. Mar. 11, 2024).  Dismissal is therefore appropriate based on a combination of failure to prosecute, mootness, and the petitioner’s consent.

It also does not appear that the appeal presents a viable claim for relief.  The petitioner failed to enroll in Retirement Plus by a Legislature-imposed deadline that names no exceptions.  See Acts 2000, c. 114, § 2.  If enrollment after such a deadline is ever permissible, the specific circumstances that may so warrant are not alleged to be present here. See Gabrielian v. Massachusetts Tchrs.’ Ret. Syst., No. CR-23-64, 2025 WL 2322617 (Contributory Ret. App. Bd. June 23, 2025); In the Matter of Enrollment in Retirement Plus, No. CR-21-369, 2023 WL 5332723 (Div. Admin. Law App. Aug. 7, 2023).  The result in cases of this nature is not affected by whether the petitioner’s circumstances are sympathetic or even unfair.  See Roussin v. Boston Ret. Syst., No. CR-23-28, 2024 WL 2956657, at *2 (Contributory Ret. App. Bd. June 3, 2024).  See generallyBristol Cty. Ret. Bd. v. Contributory Ret. Appeal Bd., 65 Mass. App. Ct. 443, 446, 450-51 (2006).

In view of the foregoing, it is hereby ORDERED that the motion to dismiss is ALLOWED and this appeal is DISMISSED.

/s/ Yakov Malkiel
Yakov Malkiel
Administrative Magistrate
Division of Administrative Law Appeals

1. As a matter of procedure, MTRS’s motion misapprehends the nature of dismissal for failure to state a claim, in the sense that the motion relies heavily on factual claims not derivable from the petitioner’s own submissions.  See Foster v. Commissioner of Correction, 484 Mass. 1059, 1059 (2020); Navarro v. Burgess, 99 Mass. App. Ct. 466, 467 n.4 (2021); Gill v. Armstrong, 102 Mass. App. Ct. 733, 737 (2023).  A scheduling order reminded the parties of the governing framework, inviting MTRS to file a motion to dismiss if “the petitioner’s allegations, even if true, would not entitle the petitioner to relief.”  In the circumstances presented, it is reasonably clear that the procedural misstep was harmless.