Court Opinion

ID: 2963807
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:15:25.241248+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:42:46.409359
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

        January 9, 1996         [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                     
                                 ____________________

        No. 95-1385

                              WILLIAM THOMAS MIDDLETON,

                                Plaintiff, Appellant,

                                          v.

                              ELIZABETH SUTTON, ET AL.,

                                Defendants, Appellees.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                        FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

                    [Hon. Paul J. Barbadoro, U.S. District Judge]
                                             ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                Selya, Cyr and Boudin,
                                   Circuit Judges.
                                   ______________

                                 ____________________

            William Thomas Middleton on brief pro se.
            ________________________
            William L.  Chapman and Orr  and Reno, Prof.  Assoc. on brief  for
            ___________________     ____________________________
        appellees.

                                 ____________________

                                 ____________________

                      Per Curiam.  The plaintiff, now  serving a term for
                      __________

            possession  of  child  pornography,  was  the  subject  of  a

            television program that portrayed him as one who had sexually

            abused and exploited his  own children.  In this  jury waived

            libel action by  the plaintiff against those  involved in the

            program, the  district court ruled on  summary judgment that,

            whether  the program was accurate  or not, the defendants had

            met  the local libel  rules by exercising  reasonable care in

            their   investigation.    See,   e.g.,  Duchesnaye  v.  Munro
                                      ___    ____   __________      _____

            Enterprises, Inc.,  125 N.H.  244, 251 (1984);  accord, e.g.,
            _________________                               ______  ____

            Kassel v. Gannet Co., 875 F.2d 935, 943 (1st Cir. 1989).  For
            ______    __________

            the reasons given  by the  district court, we  agree that  no

            factual  issue  was  presented  as  to  the  adequacy  of the

            investigation on those charges.

                      The  television program  itself, despite  a shallow

            pretence  at serious reporting, was -- as to the plaintiff --

            a highly colored and inflammatory version of the events.  But

            there seems to have been at least some evidence for, and some

            investigation  of, various  key charges.   The  most dramatic

            exception  was the suggestion, for which we have been offered

            no evidence whatever, that  plaintiff served in a pornography

            ring  that was  involved  in the  murder  of children.    But

            plaintiff   himself  failed  to   stress  this  murder  claim

            adequately in opposing summary judgment, it went  unmentioned

                                         -2-

            by  the district  judge,  and we  think  it  is too  late  to

            resurrect it now.

                      Affirmed.
                      ________

                                         -3-