[NOT FOR PUBLICATION] [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]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 (D.P.R. Jan. 23, 1997 (unpublished).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