King v. King
Case Date: 12/10/1996
Court: United States Court of Appeals
Docket No: 96-1756
|
[NOT FOR PUBLICATION] [NOT FOR PUBLICATION] UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT _________________________ No. 96-1756 DOUG KING AND CHERYL KING, Plaintiffs, Appellants, v. GREGG KING,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 |