Kimberly L. Cannon-Atkinson v. William S. Cohen, Etc.

[NOT FOR PUBLICATION — NOT TO BE CITED AS PRECEDENT]
United States Court of Appeals
For the First Circuit
No. 00-1791
KIMBERLY L. CANNON-ATKINSON,
Plaintiff, Appellant,
v.
WILLIAM S. COHEN, ETC.,
Defendant, Appellee.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO
[Hon. Juan M. Pérez-Giménez, U.S. District Judge]
Before
Selya, Stahl and Lynch,
Circuit Judges.
Jean D. Larosiliere on brief for appellant.
Guillermo Gil, United States Attorney, Miguel A. Fernández
and Fidel A. Sevillano, Assistant Untied States Attorneys, on
brief for appellee.
April 10, 2001

-- 1 of 4 --

-- 2 of 4 --

-3-
Per Curiam. In this appeal, the plaintiff, a
disappointed job-seeker, challenges the district court's grant
of summary judgment in favor of her prospective employer (the
United States Navy). See Cannon-Atkinson v. Cohen, 95 F. Supp.
2d 70, 76 (D.P.R. 2000). We previously have acknowledged that
when a trial judge accurately takes the measure of a case,
applies the proper legal standards, and articulates a convincing
rationale, "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., 101 F.3d 218, 220 (1st
Cir. 1996); accord Cruz-Ramos v. Puerto Rico Sun Oil Co., 202
F.3d 381, 383 (1st Cir. 2000); Ayala v. Union de Tronquistas,
Local 901, 74 F.3d 344, 345 (1st Cir. 1996); Holders Capital
Corp. v. California Union Ins. Co. (In re San Juan Dupont Plaza
Hotel Fire Litig.), 989 F.2d 36, 38 (1st Cir. 1993). This is
such an instance. Consequently, we affirm the judgment below on
the basis of the lower court's opinion.
We add only that the issue here is not, as the
plaintiff assumes, whether she might in fact have been a better
prospect for the employer. Rather, the issue is whether the
employer's reasons for selecting another applicant (Marrero) to
fill the vacant position were pretextual. See Feliciano de la
Cruz v. El Conquistador Resort & Country Club, 218 F.3d 1, 6

-- 3 of 4 --

-4-
(1st Cir. 2000); Smith v. F. W. Morse & Co., 76 F.3d 413, 421
(1st Cir. 1996). We have carefully canvassed the record and,
like the district court, Cannon-Atkinson, 95 F. Supp. 2d at 75,
we have found no significantly probative evidence sufficient to
create a genuine dispute as to pretext.
We need go no further. We reject the plaintiff's
appeal for substantially the reasons elucidated in Judge Pérez-
Giménez's thoughtful rescript. See id. at 73-76.
Affirmed. See 1st Cir. R. 27(c).

-- 4 of 4 --