
USCA1 Opinion

	




          October 26, 1995      [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                                 ____________________        No. 95-1352                                  ANTHONY SOLIMINE,                                Plaintiff, Appellant,                                          v.                              UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                                 Defendant, Appellee.                                 ____________________                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS                     [Hon. William G. Young, U.S. District Judge]                                             ___________________                                 ____________________                                        Before                                Selya, Cyr and Boudin,                                   Circuit Judges.                                   ______________                                 ____________________            Anthony Solimine on brief pro se.            ________________            Donald  K. Stern,  United States  Attorney, and  David S.  Mackey,            ________________                                 ________________        Assistant United States Attorney, on brief for appellee.                                 ____________________                                 ____________________                 Per Curiam.   We have reviewed  the parties' briefs  and                 __________            the record on  appeal.   We agree with  the district  court's            conclusion   that  appellant's   claim   is  based   on   "an            indisputably   meritless  legal  theory."    See  Neitzke  v.                                                         ___  _______            Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989).  We, therefore, summarily            ________            affirm  essentially for  the reasons  stated in  the district            court's memorandum and order, dated February 27, 1995.                 Affirmed.  See 1st Cir. R. 27.1.                 _________  ___                                         -2-
