
USCA1 Opinion

	




                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                                 ____________________        No. 96-1094                                 MICHAEL A. CROOKER,                                Plaintiff, Appellant,                                          v.               TAX DIVISION OF THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, ET AL.,                                Defendants, Appellees.                                 ____________________                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS                      [Hon. Michael Ponsor, U.S. District Judge]                                 ____________________                                        Before                                Torruella, Chief Judge,                                           ___________                          Boudin and Lynch, Circuit Judges.                                            ______________                                 ____________________            Michael Alan Crooker on brief pro se.            ____________________            Donald K.  Stern, United  States Attorney,  and Karen L.  Goodwin,            ________________                                _________________        Assistant United States Attorney, on brief for appellees.                                 ____________________                                   August 20, 1996                                 ____________________                 Per  Curiam.  We  have reviewed the  parties' briefs and                 ___________            the  record  on  appeal.   As  in  the case  of  an  award of            attorney's  fees  under  the Freedom  of  Information  Act, 5            U.S.C.    552(a)(4)(E), see  Crooker v. United  States Parole                                    ___  _______    _____________________            Comm'n, 776  F.2d 366, 367  (1st Cir. 1985), the  decision to            ______            award  litigation costs, even to  a complainant found to have            substantially prevailed,  is within  the sound  discretion of            the district court.  The magistrate judge amply supported his            recommendation that costs  not be awarded -  a recommendation            adopted  by  the district  court.    There  was no  abuse  of            discretion in declining to award costs in this case.                 Appellant's motion for summary reversal is denied.                                                            _______                 The judgment of the district court is affirmed.                                                       _________                                         -2-
