
USCA1 Opinion

	




                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                                 ____________________        No. 96-1444                                 SCOTT PHILIP BROOKER,                                Plaintiff, Appellant,                                          v.                 COMMISSIONER, NH DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, ET AL.,                                Defendants, Appellees.                                 ____________________                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE                   [Hon. Joseph A. DiClerico, U.S. District Judge]                                              ___________________                                 ____________________                                        Before                                Selya, Cyr and Boudin,                                   Circuit Judges.                                   ______________                                 ____________________            Scott Brooker on brief pro se.            _____________            Jeffrey R. Howard, Attorney General, and Stephen J. Judge, Senior            _________________                        ________________        Assistant Attorney General, on brief for appellees.                                 ____________________                                  November 26, 1996                                 ____________________                      Per Curiam.   Appellant Scott  Philip Brooker  sued                      __________            defendants  under 42 U.S.C.    1983, alleging  that they were            deliberately  indifferent to  his  serious medical  needs  in            violation of the  Eighth Amendment. He  now appeals from  the            district  court's grant  of summary  judgment  in defendants'            favor.    After  careful  review  of  the  record, we  affirm            substantially for the  reasons given by the district court in            its decision dated April 1, 1996.                      Affirmed.                      _________                                         -2-
