
USCA1 Opinion

	




        June 14, 1995           [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                                  ____________________        No. 94-1809                                    JIRAH KELLEY,                                Plaintiff, Appellant,                                          v.                              LARRY E. DUBOISE, ET AL.,                                Defendants, Appellees.                                 ____________________                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS                   [Hon. Edward F. Harrington, U.S. District Judge]                                               ___________________                                 ____________________                                        Before                                Torruella, Chief Judge.                                           ___________                          Selya and Boudin, Circuit Judges.                                            ______________                                 ____________________            Jirah Kelley on brief pro se.            ____________            Ann  M. McCarthy,  Counsel for  the Department  of  Correction, On            ________________        Memorandum In Support of Motion for Summary Disposition for appellees.                                 ____________________                                 ____________________                                Per  Curiam.      Jirah  Kelley  is  appealing  the                      ___________            district  court's denial  of  certain motions  in his  action            brought under 42 U.S.C.    1983.  We dismiss  Kelley's appeal            of  the court's denial of  his motion for  a default judgment            (also  characterized  as a  motion  for  summary judgment  by            default)  for want of jurisdiction.   See Bird  v. Reese, 875                                                  ___ ____     _____            F.2d  256, 256  (9th Cir.  1989)  (denial of  a motion  for a            default judgment is not immediately  appealable).  Construing            Kelley's  motion for  a  protective order  as  a request  for            preliminary injunctive  relief, we  affirm the denial  of the            motion.     Kelley  apparently  sought  an  order  forbidding            defendants  from retaliating  against  him  for  having  sued            defendants.  We affirm  since the motion failed to  show that            Kelley  was under any present threat of such retaliation.  We            deny Kelley's other requests for relief as meritless.                        Dismissed   in   part   for   want   of   appellate                      ___________________________________________________            jurisdiction and affirmed in part.            __________________________________                                         -2-
