[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]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