
USCA1 Opinion

	




          March 31, 1994        [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                                 ___________________          Nos. 93-1412               93-1580                                              WILLIAM FERGUSON,                                Plaintiff, Appellant,                                          v.                    PLUMBERS & PIPEFITTERS LOCAL UNION #4, ET AL.,                                Defendants, Appellees.                                  __________________                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS                     [Hon. Robert E. Keeton, U.S. District Judge]                                             ___________________                                 ___________________                                        Before                                 Breyer, Chief Judge,                                         ___________                         Torruella and Selya, Circuit Judges.                                              ______________                                 ___________________               William V. Ferguson Jr. on brief pro se.               ______________________               Robert M. Cheverie on Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion               __________________          for Summary Disposition for appellee.                                  __________________                                  __________________                      Per Curiam.    Plaintiff William Ferguson appeals a                      __________            district court judgment which  dismissed his pro se complaint                                                         ___ __            for  failure  to  state a  claim  upon  which  relief can  be            granted.    Having thoroughly  reviewed  the  record and  the            plaintiff's briefs  and reply  briefs, we are  persuaded that            the  district  court  judgment  is correct.    Moreover,  the            plaintiff's multiple  filings demonstrate  that this  suit is            patently frivolous  and thus also subject  to dismissal under            28 U.S.C.  1915(d).   See Neitzke v. Williams, 490  U.S. 319,                                  ___ _______    ________            327-28  (1990).1   Accordingly,  the defendants'  motion  for            summary  affirmance  is  allowed  and  the  judgment  of  the                                     _______            district court is affirmed.2                                     ________                                            ____________________            1.  Thus, there  also was  no error  in the  district court's            denial of Ferguson's motion for a preliminary injunction.            2.  Ferguson's  motion  to  adduce  additional   evidence  is            denied.                                         -2-
