
USCA1 Opinion

	




          September 14, 1995                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                                                        ____________________        No. 94-2271                                      ERIC DAVIS,                                Plaintiff, Appellant,                                          v.                                    DAVID BERUBE,                                 Defendant, Appellee.                                 ____________________                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE                   [Hon. Steven J. McAuliffe, U.S. District Judge]                                              ___________________                                 ____________________                                        Before                                Torruella, Chief Judge,                                           ___________                           Selya and Lynch, Circuit Judges.                                            ______________                                 ____________________            Eric Davis on brief pro se.            __________            Jeffrey  R.  Howard,   Attorney  General,  and  Wynn  E.   Arnold,            ___________________                             _________________        Assistant  Attorney General,  on Motion  for Summary  Disposition, for        appellee.                                 ____________________                                 ____________________                 Per Curiam.  The judgment is affirmed substantially  for                 __________            the reasons recited by the Magistrate-Judge in his Report and            Recommendation  dated  November  17,  1994.    We  add   that            plaintiff  has  done  nothing  to  call  into  question   the            conclusion--elsewhere  reached by  the New  Hampshire Supreme            Court--that the  state's parole statute, see  N.H. Rev. Stat.                                                     ___            Ann.     651-A:6 (Supp.  1994),  and  the accompanying  Adult            Parole Board Rules, fail to  create a 14th Amendment  liberty            interest with regard to  the denial of parole.   See Bussiere                                                             ___ ________            v.  Cunningham,  132  N.H.  747,  752-54  (1990);  Baker   v.                __________                                     _____            Cunningham,  128  N.H.  374,  380-81  (1986);  see  generally            __________                                     ______________            Greenholtz v. Inmates of the Nebraska Penal and  Correctional            __________    _______________________________________________            Complex, 442 U.S. 1, 7 (1979).            _______                 Affirmed.                 _________
