
USCA1 Opinion

	




          January 20, 1995                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                                 ____________________        No. 94-1101                                    THOMAS F. DOWD,                                Plaintiff, Appellant,                                          v.                       GUNNING, LAFAZIA AND GNYS, INC., ET AL.,                                Defendants, Appellees.                                 ____________________                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND                 [Hon. Francis J. Boyle, Senior U.S. District Judge]                                         __________________________                                 ____________________                                        Before                                Torruella, Chief Judge,                                           ___________                           Campbell, Senior Circuit Judge,                                     ____________________                              and Boudin, Circuit Judge.                                          _____________                                 ____________________            Thomas F. Dowd on brief pro se.            ______________            Kevin S. Cotter on brief for appellees.            _______________                                 ____________________                                 ____________________                 Per  Curiam.   The  judgment of  dismissal is  affirmed.                 ___________            Contrary to  plaintiff's  suggestion, his  complaint was  not            "lodged" with the Clerk  and thereafter rejected for "filing"            upon denial of his application to proceed in forma  pauperis;                                                      __________________            rather,  the docket sheet reveals that it was filed on August            27, 1993.  Contrary  to his further suggestion, the  order of            dismissal  here was  not  prompted by  defendants' motion  to            dismiss; rather, it  was entered,  after appropriate  notice,            for failure to prosecute.  And his argument that the district            court  was without power to enter an order of dismissal under            these circumstances is frivolous.  See, e.g., Fed. R. Civ. P.                                               ___  ____            41(b); 28 U.S.C.   1915(d).                  Affirmed.                 _________
