
USCA1 Opinion

	




                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                            United States Court of Appeals                                For the First Circuit                                 ____________________          No. 96-2089                                   PAULA KILCOYNE,                                Plaintiff - Appellant,                                          v.                               BENTLEY COLLEGE, ET AL.,                               Defendants - Appellees.                                 ____________________                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS                      [Hon. Patti B. Saris, U.S. District Judge]                                            ___________________                                 ____________________                                        Before                               Torruella, Chief Judge,                                          ___________                        Bownes and Cyr, Senior Circuit Judges.                                        _____________________                                _____________________               J. Daniel Lindley for appellant.               _________________               David C. Henderson, with  whom Sharon R. Burger and  Nutter,               __________________             ________________      _______          McClennen & Fish, LLP were on brief for appellees.          _____________________                                 ____________________                                     May 22, 1997                                 ____________________                    Per  Curiam.   Upon full  consideration of  the record,                    Per  Curiam.                    ___________          briefs and argument  of counsel,  we affirm the  decision of  the          district  court on the basis  of its Memorandum  and Order, dated          August 2, 1996, on Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment.                    Affirmed.    Double  costs  are  granted  to appellees,                    ________          chargeable  against appellant's counsel.  See Fed. R. App. P. 38;                                                    ___          28  U.S.C.    1927 ("Any  attorney .  . .  who so  multiplies the          proceedings  in  any case  unreasonably  and  vexatiously may  be          required by  the court  to satisfy  personally the  excess costs,          expenses, and attorneys' fees reasonably incurred because of such          conduct.").                                         -2-
