Court Opinion

ID: 2965099
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:35:25.102466+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:02:01.646325
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                                 ____________________

        No. 97-1565

                                   RONALD E. EGAN,

                                Plaintiff, Appellant,

                                          v.

                           ATHOL MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, ET AL.,

                                Defendants, Appellees.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

                   [Hon. Nathaniel M. Gorton, U.S. District Judge]
                                              ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                Torruella, Chief Judge,
                                           ___________
                          Boudin and Stahl, Circuit Judges.
                                            ______________

                                 ____________________

            Ronald E. Egan on brief pro se.
            ______________
            Francis D.  Dibble, Jr., J. Michael Scully and Bulkley, Richardson
            _______________________  _________________     ___________________
        and Gelinas, LLP on brief for appellee Athol Memorial Hospital.
        ________________
            Gerard R. Laurence, Karyn  Polito and Milton, Laurence & Dixon  on
            __________________  _____________     ________________________
        brief for appellee Yong Min Chi, M.D.

                                 ____________________

                                   January 6, 1998
                                 ____________________

                      Per Curiam.   After carefully reviewing  the record
                      __________

            and  the  parties'  briefs, we  affirm  the  district court's

            judgment for essentially the reasons stated in its Memorandum

            and  Order, dated March 28,  1997.  We  add only that summary

            judgment was proper on the antitrust claims because appellant

            failed  to  submit any  facts  from  which  the  court  could

            conclude, either directly  or by inference, that  the actions

            of the appellees harmed competition in any way.  See Benjamin
                                                             ___ ________

            v. Aroostook Med. Ctr., Inc., 113 F.3d 1, 1-2 (1st Cir. 1997)
               _________________________

            (per curiam).

                      Affirmed.  See Local Rule 27.1
                      ________   ___

                                         -2-