
USCA1 Opinion

	




                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                                 ____________________        No. 97-1968                                   LLOYD MATTHEWS,                                Plaintiff, Appellant,                                          v.                                 PAUL RAKIEY, ET AL.,                                Defendants, Appellees.                                 ____________________                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS                     [Hon. William G. Young, U.S. District Judge]                                             ___________________                                 ____________________                                        Before                                 Selya, Circuit Judge,                                        _____________                              Cyr, Senior Circuit Judge,                                   ____________________                              and Boudin, Circuit Judge.                                          _____________                                 ____________________            Katharine F. Zupan and  Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi L.L.P.  on            __________________      ______________________________________        brief for appellant.            Nancy Ankers White, Special Assistant  Attorney General, and  Joel            __________________                                            ____        J. Berner, Counsel, Department of Correction, on brief for appellees.        _________                                 ____________________                                   December 9, 1997                                 ____________________                           Per Curiam.    Upon careful  review  of the  briefs  and                 __________            record, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its            discretion in  denying plaintiff's  1993 or  1995 motions  to            amend his complaint.  Even  in light of plaintiff's prior pro            se  status and his various letters  and motions in 1990-1991,            we cannot say  that the district court was  required in 1990-            1991  to offer plaintiff  any additional advice  or to create            any  additional  opportunity  for   plaintiff  to  amend  his            complaint.                  Affirmed.  See 1st Cir. Loc. R. 27.1.                 ________   ___                                         -2-
