
USCA1 Opinion

	




        October 7, 1994         [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                                 ____________________        No. 94-1728                                      IN RE:  WILLIAM J. BURGESS,                                      Appellant.                                 ____________________                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE                [Hon. Martin F. Loughlin, Senior U.S. District Judge]                                          __________________________                                 ____________________                                        Before                                Selya, Cyr and Boudin,                                   Circuit Judges.                                   ______________                                 ____________________            William J. Burgess on brief pro se.            __________________                                 ____________________                                 ____________________                 Per  Curiam.   The  district  court  did not  abuse  its                 ___________            discretion  in  denying  the  request  to  proceed  in  forma            pauperis, see Temple v. Ellerthorpe, 586 F. Supp. 848 (D.R.I.                      ___ ______    ___________            1984)   (discussing   the   discretionary  nature   of   this            determination),  nor   did  it  fail  to   give  an  adequate            explanation,  assuming it  were  obliged to  do  so, for  its            ruling.                 Affirmed.                 _________                                         -3-
