USCA1 Opinion

[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

_________________________

No. 96-1948

DAVID W. HANN,

Plaintiff, Appellant,

v.

MICRON SEPARATIONS, INC.,

Defendant, Appellee.

__________________________

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

[Hon. Nathaniel M. Gorton, U.S. District Judge]

___________________

__________________________

Before

Selya, Circuit Judge,

_____________

Cyr, Senior Circuit Judge,

____________________

and Stahl, Circuit Judge.

_____________

_________________________

William T. Murphy on brief for appellant.

_________________
Edward J. Goddard and
___________________

Day, Berry & Howard on

_____________________

appellee.

_________________________

brief for

February 12, 1997

_________________________

Per Curiam.
Per Curiam.
__________

In the suit

that underlies this

appeal,

plaintiff-appellant

David

W.

employer, Micron Separations,

industrial

obligation

Micron

filtration

when it

moved for

Hann

Inc. (Micron),

systems,

terminated

summary

alleges

him as

judgment on

the

event of

circumstance that

another

his

severance

its marketing

the

quondam

a manufacturer

disregarded

written employment contract provided

in

that

ground that

had not occurred).

acquisition

Hann's

only

of Micron

A magistrate

pay

director.

for such remuneration

company's

of

(a

judge heard

arguments and wrote a carefully reasoned report recommending that

the district

court grant

brevis disposition in
______

Micron's favor.

The magistrate concluded, after examining the relevant

that the proof,

taken in

case, proves neither a

employment

contract nor

the aspect most

flattering to

modification of the terms of

a breach

evidence,

of those terms.

Hann's

his written

On

de novo

review,

the

district

court

entered

summary

judgment

Having

determined

that

accepted

for

oral

the

recommendation

the defendant.

argument would

Hann

not

and

appeals.

advance

the

decisional process, we summarily affirm.

On

whole-record review,

suitable

case in

"when

lower

which to

we

act upon

court produces

our long-held

comprehensive,

decision,

an

length to

no other

Lawton v.
______

State Mut. Life Assur. Co. of Am., 101

__________________________________

(1st

appellate court

believe that

end than

should

to hear

refrain

this is

belief that

well-reasoned

from writing

its own words

at

resonate."

F.3d 218, 220

Cir. 1996); accord In re San Juan Dupont Plaza Hotel Fire

______ ________________________________________

Litig., 989
______

F.2d 36, 38 (1st

judgment for substantially

below.

Cir. 1993).

Hence,

the reasons set forth

we affirm the

in the opinion

We add only a small coda.

In his brief, Hann rehashes the evidence and invites us

to take

a more expansive view of the facts than did the district

court.

We decline the invitation.

stake,

we, like the trial

When summary judgment is at

court, must scrutinize

the record in

the light most

reasonable
__________

favorable to the nonmoving party,

inferences in

that party's

favor,"

"indulging all

Griggs-Ryan v.
___________

Smith, 904 F.2d 112, 115 (1st Cir. 1990) (emphasis supplied), but
_____

disregarding

unsupported

allegations, unreasonable

and conclusory speculation.

F.3d

413, 428

(1st Cir.

Tobacco Co., 896 F.2d

___________

of

material fact

See Smith v. F.W. Morse & Co., 76

___ ______
_________________

1996); Medina-Munoz
____________

5, 8 (1st Cir. 1990).

percolates

judgment

is proper.

judgment

is "to

inferences,

through the

v.

R.J. Reynolds
_____________

If no genuine issue

record, then

So viewed, the essential purpose of summary

pierce the

boilerplate

of the

pleadings" and

appraise the proof to determine whether a trial is needed.

v.

summary

Tufts Univ. Sch. of Med., 976

________________________

Wynne
_____

F.2d 791, 794 (1st Cir. 1992),

cert. denied, 507 U.S. 1030 (1993).

_____ ______

Here, a trial would serve no

useful purpose.

We

56 standard

party

will not tarry.

Despite the generosity of the Rule

vis- -vis the party opposing

is not entitled to the benefit

can conjure

up;

he is

reasonable inference.
__________

only entitled

summary judgment, that

of every inference that he

to the

benefit of

See National Amusements, Inc. v.

___ _________________________

every

Town of
_______

Dedham,
______

43 F.3d 731,

2247 (1995).

the

cert. denied, 115

_____ ______

S. Ct.

In this instance, we cannot draw the inference that

appellant hawks.

president,

735 (1st Cir.),

To the contrary, the statement of Micron's

Dr. John Greenwood, which

the appellant cites as the

basis for his claim of an oral modification, simply will not bear

the weight that the appellant piles upon it.

The

appellant's promissory

better

than his breach

law, a

promisee's reliance

enforceable contract,

See
___

841,

estoppel

of contract claim.

on

but only

a promise

849-50,

647

N.E.2d

1174,

1178-79

fares

no

Under Massachusetts

may give

if such reliance

Rhode Island Hosp. Trust Nat'l Bank v.

____________________________________

claim

rise to

an

is reasonable.

Varadian, 419 Mass.

________

(1995); Cambridgeport

_____________

Savings Bank v. Boersner, 413 Mass. 432, 442-43, 597 N.E.2d 1017,
____________
________

1023-24 (1992); Loranger Constr. Corp. v. E.F. Hauserman Co., 376

______________________
__________________

Mass.

757, 760-61, 384 N.E.2d

176, 179 (1978);

House Microwave, Inc., 24 Mass.

______________________

178, 184

(1987); see also

___ ____

F.3d 1115, 1124-25 (1st

law to honor a

employment

assuming

arrangement

factfinder

Coll v. PB Diagnostic Sys., Inc., 50

____
_________________________

Cir. 1995) (refusing under Massachusetts

when

for argument's

to

93-94, 506 N.E.2d

promissory estoppel claim for an

contract

authority

App. Ct. 84,

Hall v. Horizon
____
_______

bind

an

reliance

sake

Micron

to

was

that Dr.

change

orally modified

unreasonable).

Greenwood had

in

Hann's

assumption that the record tends

rationally

could

conclude

that

the

Even

apparent

severance

to belie

no

appellant's

professed reliance

Even

on

the

on

Dr. Greenwood's

appellant's

version,

Dr.

remark

was

reasonable.

Greenwood's

statement

amounted

to

no

more than

thinking could have

been improved by this

led Hann

passing

comment.

to believe that

passing comment

Only

wishful

his contract

and wishful

had

thinking is

not enough to support a cognizable claim of detrimental reliance.

Thus, the magistrate judge and district court

proper office

acted within their

in rejecting

the unreasonable inference

the appellant's case rests.

See Smith, 76 F.3d at 428.

___ _____

We need

district

court

go no further.

appropriately

judgment, we summarily affirm.

Affirmed.
Affirmed.
________

Finding,

granted

as we do,

Micron's

See 1st Cir. R. 27.1.

___

on which

that the

motion

for