Court Opinion

ID: 2963229
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:07:44.866967+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:10:51.087354
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

          February 16, 1995     [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                              _________________________          No. 94-1731                                      JOHN BEST,                                Plaintiff, Appellant,                                          v.                                 DAVID ROME, ET AL.,                                Defendants, Appellees.                              __________________________                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS                   [Hon. Joseph L. Tauro, Jr., U.S. District Judge]
                                               ___________________                              __________________________                                        Before                          Selya and Boudin, Circuit Judges,
                                            ______________                             and Carter,* District Judge.
                                          ______________                              __________________________               Valeriano Diviacchi for appellant.
               ___________________               John  McMahon, with  whom  Angoff, Goldman,  Manning,  Pyle,
               _____________              _________________________________          Wagner & Hiatt, P.C. was on brief, for appellees.
          ____________________                              __________________________                              __________________________          ________________          *Chief  Judge, United  States District Court  of the  District of          Maine, sitting by designation. 

                    Per  Curiam.   In  this legal  malpractice action,  the
                    Per  Curiam.
                    ___________          district  court   granted  summary  judgment  in   favor  of  the          defendants (a lawyer and his law firm), citing  two independently          sufficient reasons.  See  Best v. Rome, 858 F.  Supp. 271, 274-78
                               ___  ____    ____          (D.  Mass.  1994).    Having carefully  considered  the  parties'          briefs, perused  the record, and  studied the applicable  law, we          share the district  court's conclusion, id.  at 277-78, that  the
                                                  ___          record  reveals no genuine issue of material fact on the question          of malpractice.  Thus, regardless of how the other issues  in the          case  might be resolved   a matter on which we take no view   the          judgment below must be upheld.                    We  need go no further.   As we  have indicated before,          when  a  district court  produces  a  well-reasoned opinion  that          reaches  the correct result in a given case, a reviewing tribunal          should not rush  to write at length merely to  put matters in its          own words.   See, e.g., In  re San Juan  Dupont Plaza Hotel  Fire
                       ___  ____  _________________________________________          Litig., 989 F.2d 36, 38 (1st Cir. 1993).  So it is here.  Because
          ______          we  agree with  the court below  that, in this  case, the summary          judgment  record contains  no  evidence sufficient  to support  a          colorable claim of  professional negligence, we  summarily affirm          the judgment below, for  substantially the reasons articulated in          the district court's alternative holding.  See Best, 858 F. Supp.
                                                     ___ ____          at 277-78.   We add only that, despite  our summary affirmance of          the judgment below,  we do  not regard the  appeal as so  utterly          lacking  in  merit  as  to  warrant  the  imposition  of  special          penalties.  We, therefore, deny                                          2

           the  defendants' request  for  sanctions,  but award  defendants          their ordinary costs.          Affirmed.  See  1st Cir. R. 27.1.  Costs in favor of appellees.
          Affirmed.  See  1st Cir. R. 27.1.  Costs in favor of appellees.
          ________   ___                     ___________________________                                          3