
USCA1 Opinion

	




                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                                 ____________________        No. 97-1810                                    FRIEDRICH LU,                                Plaintiff, Appellant,                                          v.                              DAVID CHRISTIANI, ET AL.,                                Defendants, Appellees.                                 ____________________                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS                     [Hon. Richard Stearns, U.S. District Judge]                                            ___________________                                 ____________________                                        Before                                Torruella, Chief Judge,                                           ___________                           Selya and Stahl, Circuit Judges.                                            ______________                                 ____________________            Friedrich Lu on brief pro se.            ____________            Susan M. Donnelly,  B.B.O. and Murphy  & Riley, P.C. on  brief for            __________________________     _____________________        appellees.                                 ____________________                                  December 18, 1997                                 ____________________                 Per Curiam.    Upon careful  review  of the  briefs  and                 __________            record,  we  conclude   that  the  district  court   properly            dismissed  appellant's amended complaint  because it  did not            state  a  cognizable  federal  claim.   To  the  extent  that            appellant  attempts to  raise other  issues  in this  appeal,            those issues do not merit further comment.                 Affirmed.  See 1st Cir. Loc. R. 27.1.                 ________   ___                                         -2-
