USCA1 Opinion

[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]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

________________

Millimet & Branch Professional Association

____________________________________________

were on

and Devine,
_______

brief, for

appellants.
Mitchell P. Utell, with
_________________

whom Thomas, Utell, Van De Water &

______________________________

Raiche was on brief, for appellee.

______

_________________________

December 10, 1996

_________________________

Per Curiam.
Per Curiam.
__________

Having reviewed the record, considered the

parties'

persuaded

denying

briefs, and

entertained

that the court below neither

the plaintiffs'

(made roughly a

belated motion

year after

(D.N.H. 1996), we

to amend

nor erred

in

Since the

are adequately illumined in the

see King
___ ____

need go no

fully

the complaint

favor of the defendant.

reasons underlying these rulings

court's opinion,

we are

abused its discretion in

discovery had closed)

granting summary judgment in

district

oral argument,

v. King,
____

further.

922 F.

Instead,

Supp. 700

we affirm

the

judgment for substantially the reasons elucidated by Judge Devine

in his well-reasoned rescript.

Affirmed.
Affirmed.

________