
USCA1 Opinion

	




                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                                 ____________________        No. 97-1914                                   GENE SCHOFIELD,                                Plaintiff, Appellant,                                          v.                              JAMES BROWN, ETC., ET AL.,                                Defendants, Appellees.                                 ____________________                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS                  [Hon. George A. O'Toole, Jr., U.S. District Judge]                                                ___________________                                 ____________________                                        Before                                Torruella, Chief Judge,                                           ___________                           Stahl and Lynch, Circuit Judges.                                            ______________                                 ____________________            Gene Schofield on brief pro se.            ______________            Ann Pauly, Richmond,  Pauly & Ault and  Leon Friedman on brief for            _________  _______________________      _____________        appellees James Brown and Polygram Records, Inc.            Leonard  L. Lewin,  Michael N.  Sheetz,   and  Gadsby &  Hannah on            _________________   __________________         ________________        brief for appellees Dynatone Publishing Co. and Rightsong Music, Inc.                                 ____________________                                   February 5, 1998                                 ____________________                 Per Curiam.   This is an appeal from  a summary judgment                 __________            dismissing  appellant's  claims  of  copyright  infringement.            Reviewing the  judgment de novo,  in light of the  briefs and                                    __ ____            the record, we  agree with the district  court's analysis and            affirm  substantially for  the  reasons  set  forth  in  that            court's Memorandum and Order of  June  11, 1997.  See Loc. R.                                                              ___            27.1.   We also  see no  abuse of discretion  in the  court's            alternative  ruling on  the  defense of  laches,  nor in  the            multiple procedural rulings which appellant assigns as errors            on appeal.                   Affirmed.                  ________                                         -2-
