Best v. Rome
Case Date: 02/16/1995
Court: United States Court of Appeals
Docket No: 94-1731
|
February 16, 1995 [NOT FOR PUBLICATION] [NOT FOR PUBLICATION] UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT _________________________ No. 94-1731 JOHN BEST, Plaintiff, Appellant, v. DAVID ROME, ET AL., Defendants,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 |