Fuentes v. Dept. of HHS

U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit

Fuentes v. Dept. of HHS

Opinion

USCA1 Opinion





[NOT FOR PUBLICATION] [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]


UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

_________________________


No. 97-1560

JOSE R. FUENTES,

Plaintiff, Appellant,

v.

UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE,

Defendant, Appellee.

_________________________

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

[Hon. Salvador E. Casellas, U.S. District Judge] ___________________

_________________________

Before

Selya, Circuit Judge, _____________

Campbell, Senior Circuit Judge, ____________________

and Lynch, Circuit Judge. _____________

_________________________

Ferdinand Vargas, on brief for appellant. ________________
Guillermo Gil, United States Attorney, and Fidel A. ______________ __________
Sevillano Del-R o, Assistant United States Attorney, on brief for _________________
appellee.

_________________________

December 10, 1997

_________________________



















Per Curiam. The plaintiff in this case, who is a Per Curiam. ___________

former employee of the United States Postal Service, seeks

reinstatement and various other kinds of relief from the

defendant. We have carefully read the parties' briefs, evaluated

their legal arguments, and studied the papers in the case. We

conclude, on whole-record review, that this is a suitable case in

which to act upon our long-held belief that "when a lower court

produces a comprehensive, well-reasoned decision, an appellate

court should refrain from writing at length to no other end than

to hear its own words resonate." Lawton v. State Mut. Life ______ ________________

Assur. Co. of Am., 101 F.3d 218, 220 (1st Cir. 1996); accord In _________________ ______ __

re San Juan Dupont Plaza Hotel Fire Litig., 989 F.2d 36, 38 (1st ___________________________________________

Cir. 1993). Hence, we affirm the judgment for substantially the

reasons set forth in the lower court's thoughtful opinion. See ___

Fuentes v. United States Postal Serv., No. 92-1658 (SEC), slip _______ ___________________________

op. (D.P.R. Jan. 23, 1997 (unpublished). We need go no further.

The judgment below is summarily affirmed. See 1st Cir. R. 27.1. ___



Affirmed. Affirmed. ________
















2






Reference

Status
Published