
USCA1 Opinion

	




                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                                 ____________________        No. 97-1156                                    JOHN S. BARTH,                                Plaintiff, Appellant,                                          v.                                 VISX, INC., ET AL.,                                Defendants, Appellees.                                 ____________________                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS                       [Hon. Mark L. Wolf, U.S. District Judge]                                 ____________________                                        Before                               Selya, Boudin and Stahl,                                   Circuit Judges.                                   ______________                                 ____________________            John S. Barth on brief pro se.            _____________            Maureen  A.  MacFarlane,  Lee  T.  Gesmer  and  Lucash,  Gesmer  &            _______________________   _______________       __________________        Updegrove, LLP, on brief for appellee.        ______________                                 ____________________                                   August 26, 1997                                 ____________________                 Per  Curiam.  We  have reviewed the  parties' briefs and                 ___________            the record on appeal.   We affirm the  order of the  district            court, dated  August 19,  1996, essentially  for the  reasons            stated in the  district court's memorandum of  the same date.            As for  the motion  to recuse, we  will assume  arguendo that                                                            ________            appellant intended to file the motion in the present case and            mistakenly put an  earlier case number on the  motion but, in            any event,  we affirm the  order of the district  court dated            October 22, 1993, denying the motion for recusal, essentially            for the reasons stated in the district court's order.                 Affirmed.  Loc. R. 27.1.                 _________                                         -2-
