Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): Commonwealth, 437 Mass. 312, 771 N.E.2d 770, 775-76 (2002); see also Brum v. Town of Dartmouth, 428 Mass. 684, 704 N.E.2d 1147, 1155 (1999) (“[T]he principal purpose of § 10(j) is to preclude liability for failure to prevent' or diminish harm, including harm brought about by the wrongful act of a third party.”). Here, Plaintiff has not presented evidence of an affirmative act (as opposed to a failure to act) by the Individual Defendants that originally caused Plaintiff to suffer harassment. See, e.g., Doe v. Old Rochester Reg'l Sch. Dist., 56 F.Supp.2d 114, 121 (D.Mass.1999) (“Even if the School District ignored the Does’ complaints about harassment by other students, "there are no allegations that it ‘originally caused’ the students to harass Jane Doe.”); Brum, 704 N.E.2d at 1155-56 (<HOLDING>). Thus, even if Plaintiff had made presentment, 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a school had no duty to protect pedestrian from student (B) holding that a prosecutor is absolutely immune from a suit claiming that he destroyed and falsified evidence (C) holding that school officials were immune from suit claiming they failed to protect student from an inschool stabbing (D) holding college school district immune from suit in federal court under eleventh amendment (E) holding state immune from suit involving a federal question
Output (English): holding that a school had no duty to protect pedestrian from student