Zarrilli v. FDIC ( 2001 )

[NOT FOR PUBLICATION–NOT TO BE CITED AS PRECEDENT]
United States Court of Appeals
For the First Circuit
No. 00-9006
IN RE: VINCENT F. ZARRILLI
VINCENT F. ZARRILLI,
Debtor, Appellant,
v.
FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION,
Creditor, Appellee,
DOREEN B. SOLOMON; INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE;
MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
Appellees.
APPEAL FROM THE BANKRUPTCY APPELLATE PANEL
OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT
[Hon. Joan N. Feeney, U.S. Bankruptcy Judge]
Before
Torruella, Circuit Judge,
Bownes, Senior Circuit Judge,
and Lipez, Circuit Judge.
Vincent F. Zarrilli on brief pro se.
Ann S. DuRoss, Assistant General Counsel, Colleen J. Boles,
Senior Counsel, and Jaclyn C. Taner, Counsel, on brief for
appellee Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.
JUNE 28, 2001
Per Curiam. In this appeal, pro se appellant
Vincent F. Zarrilli appeals from a decision by the
Bankruptcy Appellate Panel ("BAP") affirming the bankruptcy
court's denial of certain motions he filed in two bankruptcy
proceedings. In its decision, the BAP concluded that the
doctrine of res judicata barred Zarrilli's claims. We
affirm, essentially for the reasons given by the BAP in its
decision dated April 19, 2000.
In the present appeal, Zarrilli disputes the BAP's
ruling in only one pertinent respect. He suggests that
rulings by this court in a prior appeal were not decisions
"on the merits" for res judicata purposes because the
rulings failed to adequately explain the court's adverse
decision. We find this claim meritless. The rulings in
question did explain the decision reached by the court, and,
in any event, a court's failure to explain a decision does
not mean that the decision is not "on the merits." See C.
Wright, A. Miller & E. Cooper, 18 Fed. Prac & Proc. § 4435,
at 348 (2001 Supp.) ("Finally, it should be clear that a
decision may be 'on the merits' even though it is reached
without opinion or other explanation.") (citations omitted).
-3-
Affirmed.
-4-