
USCA1 Opinion

	




        September 23, 1996      [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                                 ____________________        No. 96-1200                                    MOSHE ROTHMAN,                                Plaintiff, Appellant,                                          v.                             WORCESTER POLICE DEPARTMENT,                                 Defendant, Appellee.                                 ____________________                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS                   [Hon. Nathaniel M. Gorton, U.S. District Judge]                                              ___________________                                 ____________________                                        Before                                Selya, Cyr and Boudin,                                   Circuit Judges.                                   ______________                                 ____________________            Moshe Rothman on brief pro se.            _____________                                 ____________________                                 ____________________                 Per Curiam.   Pro se plaintiff  Moshe Rothman appeals  a                 __________    ___ __            district   court  order  that   dismissed  his  civil  rights            complaint as frivolous  under 28 U.S.C.    1915(d) because it            is barred by  the statute of  limitations.  After  thoroughly            reviewing the  record and  appellant's brief on  appeal, this            court concludes  that the district court's  order is correct.            See Street v. Vose,  936 F.2d 38,  39 (1st Cir. 1991),  cert.            ___ ______    ____                                      _____            denied, 502 U.S. 1063 (1992).   Accordingly, the judgment  of            ______            the  district court  is summarily  affirmed.  See  Local Rule                                               ________   ___            27.1.                                          -2-
