
USCA1 Opinion

	




        September 23, 1996      [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                                 ____________________        No. 96-1552                                   JOHN J. O'HEARN,                                Plaintiff, Appellant,                                          v.                    MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER AND SMITH, INC.,                                 Defendant, Appellee.                                 ____________________                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS                       [Hon. Mark L. Wolf, U.S. District Judge]                                           ___________________                                 ____________________                                        Before                                Torruella, Chief Judge,                                           ___________                            Cyr and Stahl, Circuit Judges.                                           ______________                                 ____________________            John J. O'Hearn, Jr. on brief pro se.            ____________________            Thomas Paul  Gorman, Bryan  G. Killian  and Sherin  and Lodgen  on            ___________________  _________________      __________________        brief for appellee.                                 ____________________                                 ____________________                      Per Curiam.    Plaintiff-appellant O'Hearn  appeals                      __________            from   the  dismissal  of   his  amended  complaint  alleging            discrimination on the basis  of religion and sex, as  well as            negligent,  intentional, and  business torts.   Reviewing the            dismissal de novo, and  considering the parties' arguments on                      __ ____            appeal, we  find no substantial  reason to disagree  with the            district court's conclusion, under  Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6),            that  the  amended  complaint   failed  to  state  a  legally            cognizable claim.                        As  to appellant's assignments of procedural error,            upon  examination of the record  we conclude:   (1) The court            did not  abuse its discretion by  denying appellant's motions            for  an appointment  of counsel;  (2) appellant  was afforded            sufficient  opportunities to  amend  the  complaint; (3)  the            court  did not  err  in resolving  the  Rule 12(b)(6)  motion            without  an oral  hearing, as  appellant did  not demonstrate            that the motion could not  be fairly and effectively  "heard"            on  the papers.   See United States  v. McGill, 11  F.3d 223,                              ___ _____________     ______            225-26 (1st Cir. 1993).                      Appellant's motion  for oral argument on  appeal is            denied.  The judgment below is affirmed.   See Loc. R. 27.1.            ______                         ________                                         -2-
