
USCA1 Opinion

	




          March 6, 1996         [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                                 ____________________        No. 95-1937                                LAWRENCE R. HOMO, SR.,                                Plaintiff, Appellant,                                          v.                              TOWN OF HENNIKER, ET AL.,                                Defendants, Appellees.                                 ____________________                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE                   [Hon. Shane Devine, Senior U.S. District Judge]                                       __________________________                                 ____________________                                        Before                                Torruella, Chief Judge,                                           ___________                            Selya and Cyr, Circuit Judges.                                           ______________                                 ____________________            Lawrence R. Homo on brief pro se.            ________________            David P. Slawsky on brief for appellees.            ________________                                 ____________________                                 ____________________                 Per Curiam.  We find no  merit in plaintiff's contention                 __________            that he was denied a full and fair opportunity to present his            arguments  in his  state court  actions.   The state  court's            failure to  accord him a hearing in  his 1994 state court law            suit  does  not  preclude  the application  of  res  judicata            principles.                 We affirm  substantially for  the reasons stated  in the            district court's July 6, 1995 opinion.  Plaintiff's challenge            to  his arrest and prosecution were so closely related to the            subjects  of  his  state  court  action  that  plaintiff  was            required  to  present  all  his  challenges  in  one  action.            Restatement  (Second) of Judgments   24 (1982).  See 1st Cir.                                                             ___            R. 27.1.                 Affirmed.                 ________                                         -2-
