
USCA1 Opinion

	




          October 22, 1993      [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                                 ___________________          No. 93-1455                                               HENRY MARTINEAU,                                Plaintiff, Appellant,                                          v.                          LARRY DUBOIS AND JUDITH W.F. CYR,                                Defendants, Appellees.                                  __________________                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS                     [Hon. Robert E. Keeton, U.S. District Judge]                                             ___________________                                 ___________________                                        Before                                Cyr, Boudin and Stahl,                                   Circuit Judges.                                   ______________                                 ___________________               Henry Martineau on brief pro se.               _______________               Nancy Ankers White, Special Assistant Attorney  General, and               __________________          Stephen  G.  Dietrick,  Deputy  General  Counsel,  Department  of          _____________________          Correction, on brief for appellees.                                  __________________                                  __________________                      Per  Curiam.   Plaintiff  brought  a  pro se  civil                      ___________                           ___ __            action under 42 U.S.C.    1983, alleging that during  a three            week period  of incarceration at  Pondville Correction Center            he  was  denied  access to  an  adequate  law  library.   The            district court dismissed the complaint  under Fed. R. Civ. P.            12(b)(6) on the ground that plaintiff's relocation to another            site  mooted the  request for  equitable relief;  and  as for            damages, the complaint did not  claim a total deprivation  of            access to legal research  materials nor allege facts to  show            any actual harm or  loss, as required by Sowell  v. Vose, 941                                                     ______     ____            F.2d 32 (1st Cir. 1991).  Reviewing the dismissal de novo, we                                                              __ ____            agree  with   the  district   court's  analysis  and   affirm            substantially  for the  reasons set  forth in  Judge Keeton's            thorough memorandum and order of April 7, 1993.                      Affirmed.                       ________                                         -2-
