
USCA1 Opinion

	




          March 23, 1993        [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                                 ___________________          No. 92-2386                                              FRANK J. CAMOSCIO,                                Plaintiff, Appellant,                                          v.                          COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS AND                        THE BOARD OF REGISTRATION IN PODIATRY,                                Defendants, Appellees.                                  __________________                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS                     [Hon. William G. Young, U.S. District Judge]                                             ___________________                                 ___________________                                        Before                              Torruella, Cyr and Boudin                                   Circuit Judges.                                   ______________                                 ___________________               Frank J. Camoscio on brief pro se.               _________________               Scott  Harshbarger,  Attorney  General, and  Beth  D.  Levi,               __________________                           ______________          Assistant  Attorney  General, on  Memorandum  in  Support of  the          Motion for Summary Affirmance for appellees.                                  __________________                                  __________________                      Per Curiam.    We  have reviewed the record in this                      __________            case  and are  persuaded  that this  action, the  appellant's            third  against   the  defendant  Board   of  Registration  in            Podiatry,  is  frivolous,   vexatious,  and  barred   by  res                                                                      ___            judicata,   the   Rooker   doctrine,  and   the   statute  of            ________          ______            limitations. See Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263  U.S. 413,                         ___ ______    __________________            416 (1923); Street v. Vose, 936 F.2d  38 (1st Cir.  1991)(per                        ______    ____            curiam).    Accordingly, the  appellees'  motion  for summary            disposition  is  allowed  and  the  judgment  dismissing  the            instant  complaint  is  affirmed.    We  further  affirm  the            district  court's order  enjoining the appellant  from filing            any further  actions without either obtaining  leave of court            or the aid and signature of counsel.                                               -2-
