USCA1 Opinion
January 9, 1996 [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
____________________
No. 95-1385
WILLIAM THOMAS MIDDLETON,
Plaintiff, Appellant,
v.
ELIZABETH SUTTON, ET AL.,
Defendants, Appellees.
____________________
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
[Hon. Paul J. Barbadoro, U.S. District Judge] ___________________
____________________
Before
Selya, Cyr and Boudin,
Circuit Judges. ______________
____________________
William Thomas Middleton on brief pro se. ________________________
William L. Chapman and Orr and Reno, Prof. Assoc. on brief for ___________________ ____________________________
appellees.
____________________
____________________
Per Curiam. The plaintiff, now serving a term for __________
possession of child pornography, was the subject of a
television program that portrayed him as one who had sexually
abused and exploited his own children. In this jury waived
libel action by the plaintiff against those involved in the
program, the district court ruled on summary judgment that,
whether the program was accurate or not, the defendants had
met the local libel rules by exercising reasonable care in
their investigation. See, e.g., Duchesnaye v. Munro ___ ____ __________ _____
Enterprises, Inc., 125 N.H. 244, 251 (1984); accord, e.g., _________________ ______ ____
Kassel v. Gannet Co., 875 F.2d 935, 943 (1st Cir. 1989). For ______ __________
the reasons given by the district court, we agree that no
factual issue was presented as to the adequacy of the
investigation on those charges.
The television program itself, despite a shallow
pretence at serious reporting, was -- as to the plaintiff --
a highly colored and inflammatory version of the events. But
there seems to have been at least some evidence for, and some
investigation of, various key charges. The most dramatic
exception was the suggestion, for which we have been offered
no evidence whatever, that plaintiff served in a pornography
ring that was involved in the murder of children. But
plaintiff himself failed to stress this murder claim
adequately in opposing summary judgment, it went unmentioned
-2-
by the district judge, and we think it is too late to
resurrect it now.
Affirmed. ________
-3-