Dwight E. Hand, M.d. v. the American Board of Surgery, Inc. on Appeal From the United States District Court…

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 02-2270
___________
DWIGHT E. HAND, M.D.,
Appellant,
v.
THE AMERICAN BOARD OF SURGERY, INC.
___________
ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
(D.C. Civil No. 01-cv-02172)
District Judge: The Honorable William H. Yohn, Jr.
___________
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
December 16, 2002
BEFORE: NYGAARD, ALITO, and McKEE, Circuit Judges.
(Filed: December 30, 2002)
___________
OPINION OF THE COURT
___________
NYGAARD, Circuit Judge.
Appellant, Dwight E. Hand, M.D., appeals from an order of the District
Court which granted summary judgment in favor of the American Board of Surgery, Inc.
Appellant alleges as error the issues listed in paragraph I, taken verbatim from his brief.
Because we conclude that the District Court did not err, we will affirm.
I.
The allegations of error asserted by appellant are as follows:
1. Whether the District Court erred as a matter of law in granting
Appellee’s motion for summary judgment and later denying
Appellant’s motion for reconsideration for Appellant’s breach of
contract action.
2. Whether the District Court erred in concluding no genuine issue of
material fact existed concerning the substance of the Appellant’s
examination and his responses therein.
3. Whether the District Court erred in concluding that Appellee’s
destruction of its notes and tapes from the Appellant’s examination
did not constitute a breach of the Appellant’s contract.
4. Whether the District Court erred in concluding that the Appellee d
not breach its contract with the Appellant when it failed to follow its
own appeal procedure in Appellant’s challenge to the outcome of his

-- 1 of 2 --

examination.
II.
The facts and procedural history of this case are well known to the parties
and the court, and it is not necessary that we restate them here. The reasons why we
write an opinion of the court are threefold: to instruct the District Court, to educate and
inform the attorneys and parties, and to explain our decision. We use a not-precedential
opinion in cases such as this, in which a precedential opinion is rendered unnecessary
because the opinion has no institutional or precedential value. See United States Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit, Internal Operating Procedure (I.O.P.) 5.3. Under the usual
circumstances when we affirm by not-precedential opinion and judgment, we briefly set
forth the reasons supporting the court’s decision. In this case, however, we have
concluded that neither a full memorandum explanation nor a precedential opinion is
indicated because of the very extensive and thorough opinions filed by Judge Yohn of
the District Court. Judge Yohn’s opinions adequately explain and fully support their
orders and refute the Appellant’s allegations of error. Hence, we believe it wholly
unnecessary to further opine, or offer additional explanations and reasons to those given
by the District Court, why we will affirm. It is a sufficient explanation to say that,
essentially for the reasons given by the District Court in its opinion filed February 14,
2002, and again in its opinion filed April 24, 2002, we will affirm.
III.
In sum, for the foregoing reasons, we will affirm the order of the District
Court filed February 14, 2002 and the order of the District Court filed April 24, 2002.
_________________________
TO THE CLERK:
Please file the foregoing opinion.
/s/ Richard L. Nygaard
Circuit Judge

-- 2 of 2 --