USCA1 Opinion
February 16, 1995 [NOT FOR PUBLICATION] [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]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