
USCA1 Opinion

	




          June 17, 1996                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                                 ____________________        No. 95-2065                              UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                                 Plaintiff, Appellee,                                          v.                      PORTLAND-PARRIS STREET ASSOCIATES, ET AL.,                                Defendants, Appellees.                                                                                      ____________                                    WAYNE JOHNSON,                                Defendant, Appellant.                                 ____________________                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                              FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE                     [Hon. D. Brock Hornby, U.S. District Judge]                                            ___________________                                 ____________________                                        Before                               Torruella, Chief Judge,                                          ___________                          Stahl and Lynch, Circuit Judges.                                            ______________                                 ____________________            Wayne Johnson on brief pro se.            _____________            Jay  P.  McCloskey,  United  States  Attorney,  Frank  W.  Hunger,            __________________                              _________________        Assistant Attorney  General, Freddi Lipstein and Mark  C. Niles, Civil                                     _______________     ______________        Division, Department of Justice.                                 ____________________                                 ____________________                      Per  Curiam.    Defendant-appellant  challenges  an                      ___________            adverse summary judgment finding him liable for debts arising            from  several  promissory notes,  and  the  dismissal of  his            various counterclaims  on jurisdictional grounds.   Reviewing            the judgment  and dismissals de novo,  and upon consideration                                         __ ____            of   the  parties'   briefs   and  the   record,  we   affirm            substantially for  the reasons set forth  in district court's            order of July  27, 1995.  See  Loc. R. 27.1.  We  also see no                                      ___            abuse  of  discretion  in  the  district  court's  denial  of            appellant's request for further discovery in this action.                      Affirmed.                      ________                                         -3-
