Filed: Mar. 19, 2002
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: Defendants, Appellees.and Lipez, Circuit Judge.Kurt E. Holmy on brief pro se.resulting from the alleged defamatory statements.reasonable factfinder could find the complainant liable for, defamation, and summary judgment was thus proper on this basis.
[NOT FOR PUBLICATION--NOT TO BE CITED AS PRECEDENT]
United States Court of Appeals
For the First Circuit
No. 00-2407
KURT E. HOLMY,
Plaintiff, Appellant,
v.
DURACELL, INC., ET AL.,
Defendants, Appellees.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
[Hon. A. David Mazzone, U.S. District Judge]
Before
Lynch, Circuit Judge,
Stahl, Senior Circuit Judge,
and Lipez, Circuit Judge.
Kurt E. Holmy on brief pro se.
Richard P. Ward, Anthony D. Rizzotti and Ropes & Gray on brief
for appellees.
March 19, 2002
Per Curiam. Kurt E. Holmy appeals from the district
court's decision granting summary judgment in favor of the
defendants in Holmy's complaint alleging retaliatory discharge,
interference with business advantage, and defamation. We have
reviewed the record, the parties' briefs, and the applicable
law, and, as to Holmy's first two claims, we AFFIRM for
essentially the same reasons set forth in the district court's
memorandum order granting summary judgment. See Holmy v.
Duracell, Inc. et al., No. 97-11173-MLW (D. Mass. Sep. 28,
2000). Holmy's defamation claim fails because, among other
things, he does not establish the necessary "special harm"
resulting from the alleged defamatory statements. See
Restatement (Second) of Torts § 575 cmt. b (1977) (defining
"special harm" as "the loss of something having economic or
pecuniary value," not a mere loss of reputation or social
standing). Nor does he establish that the statements at issue
were defamatory per se.
Id. at § 570. Accordingly, no
reasonable factfinder could find the complainant liable for
defamation, and summary judgment was thus proper on this basis.
AFFIRMED.
-2-