MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0
This appeal arises from the plaintiffs pro se complaint related to the defendants collection of sales tax on items purchased by the plaintiff. Acting on cross motions for summary judgment, the motion judge denied the plaintiffs motion and allowed the defendants motion. We affirm.
Background. We recite the undisputed facts contained in the summary judgment record. The plaintiff, Donald Renkowic, was an inmate at the Hampshire County jail and house of correction (HOC). The defendant, Keefe Commissary Network Sales, provided commissary services to inmates at the HOC. On five separate occasions the plaintiff purchased twenty white envelopes from the HOC commissary. The plaintiff submitted his order on an order form, jointly created by the defendant and the HOC, which listed the price of a white envelope at $0.06 and was marked with an asterisk (*). The order form notes “* = Includes 6.25% sales tax.” For each order of twenty envelopes, the plaintiff was charged $1.28, of which $0.08 was attributed to sales tax.
Discussion. “Summary judgment is appropriate where there are no genuine issues of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Boazova v. Safety Ins. Co., 462 Mass. 346, 350 (2012). See Mass. R. Civ. P. 56 (c), as amended, 436 Mass. 1404 (2002). Our review of a decision to grant summary judgment is de novo. Pugsley v. Police Dept. of Boston, 472 Mass. 367, 370 (2015). Where both parties have moved for summary judgment, “the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the party against whom judgment [has entered].” Boazova, 462 Mass. at 350, quoting Albahari v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Brewster, 76 Mass. App. Ct. 245, 248 n. 4 (2010). Here, the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.
Three of the five claims brought by the plaintiff arise from criminal statutes and do not provide a private cause of action. See G. L. c. 266, § 30; G. L. c. 266, § 91A; G. L. c. 274, § 6. The defendant was entitled to summary judgment on those claims. The plaintiff argues that the defendant applied the 6.25 percent Massachusetts sales tax to his orders twice, in violation of the two remaining claims of untrue and misleading advertisements, G. L. c. 266, § 91, and fraud in the sale of personal property, G. L. c. 231, § 85J. We affirm for substantially the same reasons as the motion judge.
The plaintiff argues that because the $0.06 price per envelope includes the sales tax, the price of the envelope must be some amount less than $0.06, with the amount of the tax bringing the total cost of the envelope to $.06. Therefore, by his logic, when he was charged $.08 in sales tax for twenty envelopes, he was double taxed. The undisputed material facts belie this argument. A 6.25 percent tax on a single $0.06 envelope totals $0.00375, which when added to $.06 rounds down to $0.06. When twenty envelopes are purchased at the same time, the proper calculation is to multiply $0.06375 (the price plus sales tax) by twenty, which totals $1.275 (or to multiply $.06 times twenty and then that amount times the sales tax of 6.25 percent, which also totals $1.275). Rounding $1.275 results in a total price plus tax of $1.28, the price paid by the plaintiff on each occasion.
3
The plaintiff disregards the impact of rounding on the final price for multiple units. In any event, the plaintiff offers no evidence that the amount of taxes was improper or that the defendants actions were untrue, deceptive, deceitful, or fraudulent. Accordingly, the order allowing the defendants motion for summary judgment and denying the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment was proper.
4
,
5
Judgment affirmed.
FOOTNOTES
3
. We acknowledge that the phrasing “* = Includes 6.25% sales tax” could more clearly state that sales tax, if any, is included for a single item and may be higher for a multi-unit purchase.
4
. The plaintiff raises two additional issues related to a conflict of interest and article 12 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights. We “need not pass upon [these] issues” because the plaintiff does not make substantive arguments in his brief. Mass. R. A. P. 16 (a) (9), as appearing in 481 Mass. 1628 (2019). To the extent that we have not specifically addressed other points in the plaintiffs brief, they “have not been overlooked. We find nothing in them that requires discussion.” Commonwealth v. Domanski, 332 Mass. 66, 78 (1954).
5
. The defendant requests an award of costs. Any such award is governed by Mass. R. A. P. 26, as appearing in 481 Mass. 1655 (2019). We are not persuaded that costs are appropriate in this case and, in any event, costs are not available under rule 26 as the plaintiff was determined to be indigent by the single justice who ordered entry of this appeal.