
USCA1 Opinion

	




          November 18, 1994     [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                              _________________________          No. 94-1748                                DOUGLAS E. YEO, ETC.,                                Plaintiff, Appellant,                                          v.                              TOWN OF LEXINGTON, ET AL.,                                Defendants, Appellees.                              _________________________                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS                    [Hon. Richard G. Stearns, U.S. District Judge]                                              ___________________                              _________________________                                        Before                                Selya, Circuit Judge,                                       _____________                            Bownes, Senior Circuit Judge,                                    ____________________                              and Stahl, Circuit Judge.                                         _____________                              _________________________               John W. Spillane, with  whom John J. Spillane was  on brief,               ________________             ________________          for appellant.               Jason Berger, with whom  John F. Welsh, Adam P.  Forman, and               ____________             _____________  _______________          Testa, Hurwitz & Thibeault were on brief, for appellees.          __________________________                              _________________________                              _________________________                    Per  Curiam.    We  dismiss  this  appeal  for  want of                    Per  Curiam.                    ___________          appellate jurisdiction  on the  ground of  mootness.   See, e.g.,                                                                 ___  ____          Oakville Dev. Corp. v. FDIC,  986 F.2d 611, 613 (1st Cir.  1993).          ___________________    ____          This dismissal  is  without prejudice  to  appellant's  continued          prosecution of  the underlying  action, which remains  pending in          the  district  court.    We  take  no  view  of  either  (1)  the          appropriateness  of the  district court's  denial  of preliminary          injunctive relief, or (2) the merits of the case.                    Appeal dismissed.  No costs.                    Appeal dismissed.  No costs.                    ________________   ________                                          2
