
USCA1 Opinion

	




                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                                 ____________________        No. 94-2250                                  ANTHONY SOLIMINE,                                Plaintiff, Appellant,                                          v.                          UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ET AL.,                                Defendants, Appellees.                                 ____________________                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS                     [Hon. William G. Young, U.S. District Judge]                                             ___________________                                 ____________________                                        Before                                Torruella, Chief Judge,                                           ___________                           Selya and Lynch, 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 appellees.                                 ____________________                                   August 29, 1995                                 ____________________                 Per  Curiam.  The  underlying district court  action and                 ___________            this appeal are  essentially identical  to appellant's  other            district court complaints and previous appeals in Solimine v.                                                              ________            F.B.I., Nos. 94-1873;  94-1995 (1st Cir. Mar. 24,  1995).  As            ______            we noted therein, the underlying action is frivolous as it is            based on "an  indisputably meritless legal theory."   Neitzke                                                                  _______            v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989).               ________                 Appellant's motion for oral argument is denied.                                                         _______                 We  summarily affirm  for  the  reasons  stated  in  the                               ______            district court's  memorandum  and order  of  dismissal  dated            September 21, 1994.  Loc. R. 27.1.                                         -2-
