
USCA1 Opinion

	




                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                                 ____________________        No. 96-1647                                   AARON J. MILLER,                                Plaintiff, Appellant,                                          v.                           MAINE PUBLIC SAFETY DEPARTMENT,                          A/K/A MAINE STATE POLICE, ET AL.,                                Defendants, Appellees.                                 ____________________                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                              FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE                   [Hon. Eugene W. Beaulieu, U.S. Magistrate Judge]                                             _____________________                                 ____________________                                        Before                                Torruella, Chief Judge,                                           ___________                          Boudin and Lynch, Circuit Judges.                                            ______________                                 ____________________            Aaron J. Miller on brief pro se.            _______________            Andrew Ketterer, Attorney  General, Paul Stern and Peter J. Brann,            _______________                     __________     ______________        Assistant  Attorneys  General, on  brief  for  appellees Maine  Public        Safety Department, a/k/a  Maine State Police, Dale York, Robert James,        Robert Ervin,  Walter Chapin, Stanley Cunningham,  Laurie Rackliff and        John Blagdon.            Philip M.  Coffin, III,  Thomas  V. Laprade  and Lambert,  Coffin,            ______________________   __________________      _________________        Rudman  &  Hochman  on brief  for  appellees  City  of Augusta,  Wayne        __________________        McCamish and William Hayward.                                 ____________________                                   November 7, 1996                                 ____________________                 Per Curiam.  The  judgment is affirmed substantially for                 __________            the reasons  recited by  the magistrate-judge in  his May  7,            1996 memorandum of decision.   Plaintiff's complaint that the            magistrate-judge  overlooked his  affidavit and  statement of            disputed facts  is misplaced; those documents were submitted,            in untimely fashion, only after judgment had issued.  We note            that plaintiff's  submissions would not call  the magistrate-            judge's  reasoning  into  question  in any  event.    We have            considered  the remaining arguments  advanced by plaintiff on            appeal and find them unavailing.                  Affirmed.                 _________                                         -2-
