Court Opinion

ID: 2964691
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:29:46.093761+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:11:48.610743
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            United States Court of Appeals
                                For the First Circuit
                                 ____________________

          No. 96-2089

                                   PAULA KILCOYNE,

                                Plaintiff - Appellant,

                                          v.

                               BENTLEY COLLEGE, ET AL.,

                               Defendants - Appellees.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

                      [Hon. Patti B. Saris, U.S. District Judge]
                                            ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                               Torruella, Chief Judge,
                                          ___________

                        Bownes and Cyr, Senior Circuit Judges.
                                        _____________________

                                _____________________

               J. Daniel Lindley for appellant.
               _________________
               David C. Henderson, with  whom Sharon R. Burger and  Nutter,
               __________________             ________________      _______
          McClennen & Fish, LLP were on brief for appellees.
          _____________________

                                 ____________________

                                     May 22, 1997
                                 ____________________

                    Per  Curiam.   Upon full  consideration of  the record,
                    Per  Curiam.
                    ___________

          briefs and argument  of counsel,  we affirm the  decision of  the

          district  court on the basis  of its Memorandum  and Order, dated

          August 2, 1996, on Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment.

                    Affirmed.    Double  costs  are  granted  to appellees,
                    ________

          chargeable  against appellant's counsel.  See Fed. R. App. P. 38;
                                                    ___

          28  U.S.C.    1927 ("Any  attorney .  . .  who so  multiplies the

          proceedings  in  any case  unreasonably  and  vexatiously may  be

          required by  the court  to satisfy  personally the  excess costs,

          expenses, and attorneys' fees reasonably incurred because of such

          conduct.").

                                         -2-