
USCA1 Opinion

	




          February 22, 1995     [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                                 ____________________          No. 94-1715                                   ANTHONY DEPAOLO,                                Plaintiff - Appellant,                                          v.                                FREDERICK MARTIN, AND                         CAPE COD REGIONAL TRANSIT AUTHORITY,                               Defendants - Appellees.                                 ____________________                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS                     [Hon. Robert E. Keeton, U.S. District Judge]                                             ___________________                                 ____________________                                        Before                               Torruella, Chief Judge,                                          ___________                            Bownes, Senior Circuit Judge,                                    ____________________                              and Stahl, Circuit Judge.                                         _____________                                _____________________               John N. Lewis,  with whom Ravech,  Aronson, Shuman &  Lewis,               _____________             __________________________________          P.C., was on brief for appellant.          ____               Darrell Mook, with whom  Burns & Levinson, was on  brief for               ____________             ________________          appellees.                                 ____________________                                 ____________________                    Per  Curiam.    Plaintiff-Appellant,   Anthony  DePaolo                    Per  Curiam                    ___________          ("DePaolo"), appeals the district court's jury instruction to the          effect that  he could be  found comparatively  negligent for  not          wearing  a  bicycle helmet.   DePaolo  failed  to object  to this          instruction  subsequent to  the  jury charge  and,  consequently,          waived that objection pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure          51.  Wartski v. Bedford, 926 F.2d 11, 21-22 (1st  Cir. 1991); Coy               _______    _______                                       ___          v.  Simpson Marine Safety Equip.,  Inc., 787 F.2d  19, 25-26 (1st              ___________________________________          Cir. 1986).  In the absence of compliance with Rule 51, we review          only  for plain  error amounting to  a "miscarriage  of justice."          Elgabri v. Lekas, 964 F.2d  1255, 1259 (1st Cir. 1992).   We have          _______    _____          reviewed the instructions given by the district court and find no          plain error.                      Affirmed.                    ________
