
USCA1 Opinion

	




          February 16, 1995                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                           UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                                 FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                                 ____________________        No. 94-2115                        EUGENE A. FREEMAN AND SANDRA FREEMAN,                               Plaintiffs, Appellants,                                          v.                     LENARD SIMON, M.D. AND BETH ISRAEL HOSPITAL,                                Defendants, Appellees.                                 ____________________                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS                     [Hon. A. David Mazzone, U.S. District Judge]                                             ___________________                                 ____________________                                        Before                                Torruella, Chief Judge,                                           ___________                            Cyr and Stahl, Circuit Judges.                                           ______________                                 ____________________            Eugene Freeman on brief pro se.            ______________            Charles  J. Dunn,  Jr.,  Ann L.  Simoneau and  Dunn and  Rogers on            _____________________    ________________      ________________        brief for appellees.                                 ____________________                                 ____________________                      Per Curiam.    We  affirm for the reasons stated in                      __________            the district court's November  30, 1993 memorandum and order.            At  best,  plaintiffs' pleadings  set  forth  state law  tort            causes   of  action   over  which   a  federal   court  lacks            jurisdiction  absent complete  diversity of  citizenship, and            plaintiffs  failed adequately  to allege  complete diversity.            As  for plaintiffs'  purported    1983 claims,  neither state            licensing nor  receipt of public funds  would make defendants            state actors liable to suit under  42 U.S.C.   1983.  Blum v.                                                                  ____            Yaretsky,  457  U.S.  991  (1982).    Plaintiffs'  claims  of            ________            conspiracy to  deny equal  protection were too  conclusory to            state a cause of action under 42 U.S.C.   1985(3).                      Affirmed.                        ________
