
USCA1 Opinion

	




          July 7, 1993                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                                 ____________________        No. 93-1119                                  RAYMOND A. BRISON,                                Plaintiff, Appellant,                                          v.                                  MARSOLAIS, ET AL.,                                Defendants, Appellees.                                 ____________________                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS                       [Hon. Rya W. Zobel, U.S. District Judge]                                           ___________________                                 ____________________                                        Before                               Selya, Boudin and Stahl,                                   Circuit Judges.                                   ______________                                 ____________________            Raymond A. Brison on brief pro se.            _________________                                 ____________________                                 ____________________                      Per  Curiam.    We   have  carefully  reviewed  the                      ___________            appellant's  brief and the record  on appeal.   We agree with            the district court's conclusion that appellant's complaint is            barred by Massachusetts' three-year statute of limitations on            personal injury actions, Mass.  Gen. L. ch. 260,    2A, which            is applicable  to civil rights complaints,  filed pursuant to            42 U.S.C.    1983.  Owens v. Okure, 488  U.S. 235 (1989); see                                _____    _____                        ___            also  Street  v. Vose,  936 F.2d  38  (1st Cir.  1991), cert.            ____  ______     ____                                   _____            denied, 112  S. Ct.  948 (1992).   There  is  nothing in  the            ______            record to  suggest that that limitations period was, or ought            to  have been,  tolled.   The  order  of the  district  court            dismissing the complaint is, therefore, affirmed.                      Affirmed.                      ________
