
USCA1 Opinion

	




          May 2, 1994                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                                 ____________________        No. 94-1024                                   THOMAS F. KENNEDY,                                Plaintiff, Appellant,                                          v.                              UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                                 Defendant, Appellee.                                 ____________________                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS                 [Hon. Frank H. Freedman, Senior U.S. District Judge]                                          __________________________                                 ____________________                                        Before                              Torruella, Selya and Stahl,                                   Circuit Judges.                                   ______________                                 ____________________            Robert H. Astor and Astor & Minardi on brief for appellant.            _______________     _______________            Donald  K. Stern,  United States  Attorney, and Karen  L. Goodwin,            ________________                                _________________        Assistant United States Attorney, on brief for appellee.                                 ____________________                                 ____________________                      Per  Curiam.  Plaintiff-appellant Thomas F. Kennedy                      ___________            appeals  from  the grant  of  summary  judgment  in favor  of            defendant-appellee United  States of American.   "We review a            grant  of  summary  judgment  de  novo,  employing  the  same            criteria  incumbent  upon the  district  court  in the  first            instance."  Commercial Union Ins. Co. v. Walbrook Ins. Co., 7                        _________________________    _________________            F.3d  1047, 1050 (1st Cir. 1993) (citing Pedraza v. Shell Oil                                                     _______    _________            Co., 942 F.2d 48,  50 (1st Cir. 1991),  cert. denied, 112  S.            ___                                     ____________            Ct. 993 (1992)).  We have reviewed the  briefs of the parties            and  the record  on appeal.   We  affirm essentially  for the            reasons stated in the magistrate's report and recommendation,            dated April 13, 1993, and the district court's memorandum and            order, dated December 15, 1993.                       Affirmed.  See 1st Cir. R. 27.1.                      ________   ___
