Case Name: Baboucar B. TAAL; Guylaine L. Taal, Plaintiffs, Appellants, v. Patricia ZWIRNER, et al., Defendants, Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-01-11
Citations: 117 F. App'x 775
Docket Number: No. 04-1463
Parties: Baboucar B. TAAL; Guylaine L. Taal, Plaintiffs, Appellants, v. Patricia ZWIRNER, et al., Defendants, Appellees.
Judges: Before TORRUELLA, Circuit Judge, CAMPBELL, Senior Circuit Judge, and SELYA, Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 117
Pages: 775–775

Head Matter:
Baboucar B. TAAL; Guylaine L. Taal, Plaintiffs, Appellants, v. Patricia ZWIRNER, et al., Defendants, Appellees.
No. 04-1463.
United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit.
Jan. 11, 2005.
Baboucar B. Taal and Guylaine L. Taal on brief pro se.
Fred J. Desmarais, Debra L. Mayotte and Desmarais, Ewing & Johnston, PLLC on brief for appellees Patricia Zwirner and Douglas Zwirner.
Christopher J. Pyles and Wiggin & Nourie, P.A. on brief for appellee Kim Lacey.
Russell F. Hilliard and Upton & Hatfield, LLP on brief for appellee State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company.
Before TORRUELLA, Circuit Judge, CAMPBELL, Senior Circuit Judge, and SELYA, Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
After carefully considering the record and briefs on appeal, we affirm for substantially the reasons stated by the district court.
At summary judgment, the appellants failed to produce any evidence that would tend to show a genuine dispute of material fact concerning any claim. That is a fatal defect. Griggs-Ryan v. Smith, 904 F.2d 112, 115 (1st Cir.1990).
We would add that among other problems, their claims against Douglas Zwirner were properly dismissed on the ground of res judicata. In re Colonial Mortgage Bankers Corp., 324 F.3d 12, 15 (1st Cir. 2003). Their claims against others arising from alleged perjury were properly dismissed on the ground of immunity. Stoutt v. Banco Popular de Puerto Rico, 320 F.3d 26, 33 (1st Cir.2003). And they offered no evidence that any defendant conspired to hinder or abridge protected rights. Santiago v. Canon U.S.A., Inc., 138 F.3d 1, 6 (1st Cir.1998); Cadle Co. v. Hayes, 116 F.3d 957, 960 (1st Cir.1997); Libertad v. Welch, 53 F.3d 428 (1st Cir.1995).
Affirmed. 1st Cir. Rule 27(c).