
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                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                             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  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
