Fuentes v. Dept. of HHS
Case Date: 12/10/1997
Court: United States Court of Appeals
Docket No: 97-1560
|
[NOT FOR PUBLICATION] [NOT FOR PUBLICATION] UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT _________________________ No. 97-1560 JOSE R. FUENTES, Plaintiff, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, Defendant, Appellee. _________________________ APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO [Hon. Salvador E. Casellas, U.S. District Judge] ___________________ _________________________ Before Selya, Circuit Judge, _____________ Campbell, Senior Circuit Judge, ____________________ and Lynch, Circuit Judge. _____________ _________________________ Ferdinand Vargas, on brief for appellant. ________________ Guillermo Gil, United States Attorney, and Fidel A. ______________ __________ Sevillano Del-R o, Assistant United States Attorney, on brief for _________________ appellee. _________________________ December 10, 1997 _________________________ Per Curiam. The plaintiff in this case, who is a Per Curiam. ___________ former employee of the United States Postal Service, seeks reinstatement and various other kinds of relief from the defendant. We have carefully read the parties' briefs, evaluated their legal arguments, and studied the papers in the case. We conclude, on whole-record review, that this is a suitable case in which to act upon our long-held belief that "when a lower court produces a comprehensive, well-reasoned decision, an appellate court should refrain from writing at length to no other end than to hear its own words resonate." Lawton v. State Mut. Life ______ ________________ Assur. Co. of Am., 101 F.3d 218, 220 (1st Cir. 1996); accord In _________________ ______ __ re San Juan Dupont Plaza Hotel Fire Litig., 989 F.2d 36, 38 (1st ___________________________________________ Cir. 1993). Hence, we affirm the judgment for substantially the reasons set forth in the lower court's thoughtful opinion. See ___ Fuentes v. United States Postal Serv., No. 92-1658 (SEC), slip _______ ___________________________ op. (D.P.R. Jan. 23, 1997 (unpublished). We need go no further. The judgment below is summarily affirmed. See 1st Cir. R. 27.1. ___ Affirmed. Affirmed. ________ 2 |