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                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]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