
USCA1 Opinion

	




                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                                 ____________________        No. 96-1604                                     FRED DAVIS,                                Plaintiff, Appellant,                                          v.                       WONDERLAND GREYHOUND PARK, INC., ET AL.,                                Defendants, Appellees.                                 ____________________                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS                   [Hon. Douglas P. Woodlock, U.S. District Judge]                                              ___________________                                 ____________________                                        Before                                Torruella, Chief Judge,                                           ___________                            Cyr and Stahl, Circuit Judges.                                           ______________                                 ____________________            Fred Davis on brief pro se.            __________            Stephen B. Reed and Kearns & Rubin, P.C. on brief for appellees.            _______________     ____________________                                 ____________________                                   August 27, 1996                                 ____________________                      Per  Curiam.   Having  reviewed the  entire record,                      ___________            including  the  transcript of  the  June  30, 1995  truncated            deposition  at which  plaintiff  claims he  was harassed,  we            summarily affirm the dismissal  of plaintiff's action for the            reasons  stated  in  the  district  court's  April  11,  1996            memorandum and order.  Plaintiff was not unfairly  treated at            the   deposition  and   plaintiff   was   afforded   multiple            opportunities  to  complete the  deposition.   When plaintiff            failed  without any  adequately  documented justification  to            appear  for the  rescheduled  deposition, the  court did  not            abuse its discretion in dismissing plaintiff's action.                      Affirmed.  Loc. R. 27.1.                      ________                                         -2-
