
USCA1 Opinion

	




          March 29, 1996        [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                                 ____________________          No. 95-1993                                   JOHN M. ATKINS,                                Plaintiff, Appellant,                                          v.                                   RAYTHEON CORP.,                                 Defendant, Appellee.                                 ____________________                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS                   [Hon. Douglas P. Woodlock, U.S. District Judge]                                              ___________________                                 ____________________                                        Before                                Torruella, Chief Judge                                           ___________                          Stahl and Boudin, Circuit Judges.                                            ______________                                 ____________________               John M. Atkins on brief pro se.               ______________               David C. Casey, Elena E. Salzman and Peckham,  Lobel, Casey,               ______________  ________________     _______________________          Prince & Tye on brief for appellee.          ____________                                 ____________________                                 ____________________                      Per  Curiam.   On  appeal from  an adverse  summary                      ___________            judgment, appellant assigns a single error: that the district            court  abused  its  discretion  in  denying  his  motion  for            discovery  under  Fed. R.  Civ. P.  56(f).   After  a careful            review  of the  record,  we  see  no  abuse  of  the  court's            considerable discretion to manage  pretrial proceedings.  See                                                                      ___            Carreiro v. Rhodes Gill & Co., Ltd., 68 F.3d 1443, 1446  (1st            ________    _______________________            Cir. 1995).    Appellant offered  no  basis to  believe  that            further discovery  would raise a  trialworthy issue.   Id. at                                                                   ___            1449.                         Affirmed.                       ________                                         -2-
