
USCA1 Opinion

	




          July 18, 1996                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                                 ____________________        No. 96-1249                               RICHARD A. COLE, ET AL.,                               Plaintiffs, Appellants,                                          v.                                MARIA FABIANO, ET AL.,                               Defendants, Appellants.                                 ____________________                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS                   [Hon. Reginald C. Lindsay, U.S. District Judge]                                              ___________________                                 ____________________                                        Before                                Selya, Cyr and Boudin,                                   Circuit Judges.                                   ______________                                 ____________________            Richard A. Cole, M.D. F.A.C.P. on brief pro se.            ______________________________            Hugh C. Carlin, Gross, Shuman, Brizdle  & Gilfillan, P.C., Lee  T.            ______________  _________________________________________  _______        Gesmer, and Lucash, Gesmer & Updegrove on brief for appellees.        ______      __________________________                                 ____________________                                 ____________________                      Per Curiam.  Upon careful  review of the record and                      __________            appellate  briefs,  it clearly  appears  that  no substantial            question is presented for review.                        Because appellant  did not ask  the district  court            for a  transfer and made no showing  that a transfer would be            in the  interest of  justice, we  conclude that  the district            court did not abuse  its discretion in failing to  order one.            See 28  U.S.C.    1406(a);  Cote v. Wadel, 796  F.2d 981, 984            ___                         ____    _____            (7th  Cir. 1986); see  also Mulcahy v.  Guertler, 416 F.Supp.                              _________ _______     ________            1083, 1086 (D.Mass. 1976).                      Appellant's   remaining   arguments  likewise   are            without  merit:   he  had  ample  opportunity  to respond  to            defendants' motion to dismiss; he never sought leave to amend            his complaint, and, in any case, amendment would not cure the            defects in venue; and  neither defendants' credibility on the            issue of service, nor appellant's failure to obtain a copy of            the local rules, suggests to us any reason to reverse.                       Affirmed.  See 1st Cir. Loc. R. 27.1.                      ________   ___                                         -3-
