
USCA1 Opinion

	




          November 25, 1994                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                                 ____________________        No. 94-1639                                    EDWARD LININGER,                                Plaintiff, Appellant,                                          v.                               ALEXANDER R. PIPER, III,                                 Defendant, Appellee.                                 ____________________                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS                 [Hon. Frank H. Freedman, Chief U.S. District Judge]                                          _________________________                                 ____________________                                        Before                                 Selya, Circuit Judge,                                        _____________                           Campbell, Senior Circuit Judge,                                     ____________________                              and Boudin, Circuit Judge.                                          _____________                                 ____________________            Edward Lininger on brief pro se.            _______________            John A.  Agostini and  Cain, Hibbard, Myers  & Cook  on brief  for            _________________      ____________________________        appellee.                                 ____________________                                 ____________________                      Per Curiam.  Plaintiff's  appeal is meritless.  The                      __________            statutes plaintiff challenges,  Mass. G. L. ch. 187,     1-3,            are  not unconstitutional  and  do not  deprive plaintiff  of            property.    By  preventing  plaintiff  from  acquiring  from            defendant an easement by  prescription, the statutes have not            taken  from plaintiff  anything  he has  ever  owned or  been            entitled to.                      Because this  appeal is  frivolous, and in  view of            plaintiff's repeated,  baseless litigation, we  impose double            costs  and $  200 in attorneys'  fees.   Fed. R.  App. P. 38.                      Affirmed.                      ________                                         -2-
