
USCA1 Opinion

	




                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                                 ____________________        No. 97-1565                                   RONALD E. EGAN,                                Plaintiff, Appellant,                                          v.                           ATHOL MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, ET AL.,                                Defendants, Appellees.                                 ____________________                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS                   [Hon. Nathaniel M. Gorton, U.S. District Judge]                                              ___________________                                 ____________________                                        Before                                Torruella, Chief Judge,                                           ___________                          Boudin and Stahl, Circuit Judges.                                            ______________                                 ____________________            Ronald E. Egan on brief pro se.            ______________            Francis D.  Dibble, Jr., J. Michael Scully and Bulkley, Richardson            _______________________  _________________     ___________________        and Gelinas, LLP on brief for appellee Athol Memorial Hospital.        ________________            Gerard R. Laurence, Karyn  Polito and Milton, Laurence & Dixon  on            __________________  _____________     ________________________        brief for appellee Yong Min Chi, M.D.                                 ____________________                                   January 6, 1998                                 ____________________                      Per Curiam.   After carefully reviewing  the record                      __________            and  the  parties'  briefs, we  affirm  the  district court's            judgment for essentially the reasons stated in its Memorandum            and  Order, dated March 28,  1997.  We  add only that summary            judgment was proper on the antitrust claims because appellant            failed  to  submit any  facts  from  which  the  court  could            conclude, either directly  or by inference, that  the actions            of the appellees harmed competition in any way.  See Benjamin                                                             ___ ________            v. Aroostook Med. Ctr., Inc., 113 F.3d 1, 1-2 (1st Cir. 1997)               _________________________            (per curiam).                      Affirmed.  See Local Rule 27.1                      ________   ___                                         -2-
