Court Opinion

ID: 2964483
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:26:21.381817+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:01:43.303282
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                              _________________________

          No. 96-1756

                              DOUG KING AND CHERYL KING,
                               Plaintiffs, Appellants,

                                          v.

                                     GREGG KING,
                                 Defendant, Appellee.

                              _________________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

                   [Hon. Shane Devine, Senior U.S. District Judge]
                                       __________________________

                              _________________________

                                        Before

                                Selya, Circuit Judge,
                                       _____________

                            Bownes, Senior Circuit Judge,
                                    ____________________

                              and Boudin, Circuit Judge.
                                          _____________

                              _________________________

               Donald E.  Gardner, with  whom Dyana  J. Crahan  and Devine,
               __________________             ________________      _______
          Millimet  & Branch  Professional Association  were on  brief, for
          ____________________________________________
          appellants.
               Mitchell P. Utell, with  whom Thomas, Utell, Van De  Water &
               _________________             ______________________________
          Raiche was on brief, for appellee.
          ______

                              _________________________

                                  December 10, 1996

                              _________________________ 

                    Per Curiam.  Having reviewed the record, considered the
                    Per Curiam.
                    __________

          parties'  briefs, and  entertained  oral argument,  we are  fully

          persuaded  that the court below neither  abused its discretion in

          denying  the plaintiffs'  belated motion  to amend  the complaint

          (made roughly a  year after  discovery had closed)  nor erred  in

          granting summary judgment in  favor of the defendant.   Since the

          reasons underlying these rulings  are adequately illumined in the

          district  court's opinion,  see King  v. King,  922 F.  Supp. 700
                                      ___ ____     ____

          (D.N.H. 1996), we  need go no  further.  Instead,  we affirm  the

          judgment for substantially the reasons elucidated by Judge Devine

          in his well-reasoned rescript.

                    Affirmed.
                    Affirmed.
                    ________

                                          2