
USCA1 Opinion

	




                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                                 ____________________        No. 97-1394                                  MAURICE D. YOUNG,                                Plaintiff, Appellant,                                          v.                                 JOHN HANSEN, ET AL.,                                Defendants, Appellees.                                 ____________________                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                              FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE                     [Hon. Morton A. Brody, U.S. District Judge]                                            ___________________                                 ____________________                                        Before                               Selya, Boudin and Lynch,                                   Circuit Judges.                                   ______________                                 ____________________            Maurice D. Young on brief pro se.            ________________            William R.  Fisher, Ivy L.  Frignoca and Monaghan, Leahy, Hochadel            __________________  ________________     _________________________        & Libby on brief for appellees.        _______                                 ____________________                                   October 24, 1997                                 ____________________                 Per  Curiam.  Pro  se plaintiff Maurice  Young appeals a                 ___________   ___  __            district  court  judgment  that  dismissed as  frivolous  his            second  42  U.S.C.    1983  complaint  for  damages allegedly            caused by his wrongful arrest and prosecution.  See 28 U.S.C.                                                            ___               1915(e)(2)(B)(i).  This  court  previously  affirmed   the            district  court's dismissal of Young's first   1983 complaint            as frivolous. See  Young v. Knox County Deputy,  et al., slip                          ___  _____    ___________________________            op. no. 95-1064 (1st Cir.  Oct. 17, 1995).  Having thoroughly            reviewed the record  and the  parties' briefs  on appeal,  we            agree that  this  case essentially  duplicates Young's  first            action.  Accordingly,  the judgment of the  district court is            summarily affirmed.   See, e.g., McWilliams v.  Colorado, 121                      ________    ___  ____  __________     ________            F.2d 573, 574 (10th Cir. 1997); Hudson v. Hedge, 27 F.3d 274,                                            ______    _____            276 (7th Cir. 1994); Cooper  v. Delo, 997 F.2d 376, 377  (8th                                 ______     ____            Cir. 1993); Local Rule 27.1.                                         -2-
