
USCA1 Opinion

	




          February 28, 1996                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                                 ____________________          No. 95-1774                                   FAROUK O. MARTINS,                                Plaintiff, Appellant,                                          v.                         CHARLES HAYDEN GOODWILL INN SCHOOL,                                 Defendant, Appellee.                                 ____________________                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS                     [Hon. Robert E. Keeton, U.S. District Judge]                                             ___________________                                 ____________________                                        Before                                Torruella, Chief Judge,                                           ___________                            Selya and Cyr, Circuit Judges.                                           ______________                                 ____________________          Farouk Martins on brief pro se.          ______________          Andrew  L.  Matz  and  Stoneman,  Chandler  &  Miller  on  brief for          ________________       ______________________________     appellee.                                 ____________________                                 ____________________                 Per Curiam.   We have reviewed  the parties' briefs  and                 __________            the  record on appeal.  We affirm the district court judgment            of  July   17,  1995,  granting  summary   judgment  for  the            defendant, essentially for the reasons stated at the close of            the hearing  held July 6,  1995, transcript pages  34-48, and            the memorandum and order, dated July 17, 1995.                 We  add only  that there  was neither  error of  law nor            abuse of  discretion in the district  court's earlier vacatur            of a  default order entered against defendant as it correctly            concluded that plaintiff had not properly served his original            complaint and,  in any event, that  original complaint failed            to state a claim within the jurisdiction of the  court, as it            inadequately alleged racial discrimination as its basis.                 Affirmed.                 _________
