
USCA1 Opinion

	




          July 9, 1996          [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                                 ____________________          No. 96-1057                                RICHARD A. COLE, M.D.,                                     Petitioner,                                          v.                               THOMAS J. WEADOCK, JR.,                               Chief Probation Officer,                           U.S. District of Massachusetts,                                     Respondent.                                 ____________________                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS                     [Hon. Joseph L. Tauro, U.S. District Judge]                                            ___________________                                 ____________________                                        Before                               Selya, Boudin and Stahl,                                   Circuit Judges.                                   ______________                                 ____________________               Richard A. Cole, M.D. F.A.C.P. on brief pro se.               ______________________________               Donald K. Stern, United  States Attorney, and Jeffry Fowley,               _______________                               _____________          Special   Assistant  United   States  Attorney,   on   brief  for          respondent.                                 ____________________                                 ____________________                 Per Curiam.   We have considered the parties' briefs and                 __________            the  record on appeal.  We affirm essentially for the reasons            stated in the magistrate  judge's report and  recommendation,            dated November  14, 1995, which  was accepted and  adopted by            the district court in an order, dated  November 30, 1995.  In            addition,  we  find  neither  error   of  law  nor  abuse  of            discretion in  the  district court's  denial  of  appellant's            subsequent motion filed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b).                 Affirmed.  See 1st Cir. R. 27.1.                 _________  ___
