USCA1 Opinion

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]






                                 ____________________


        No. 92-1308 

                                     JO WHIGHAM,

                                Plaintiff, Appellant,

                                          v.

                          FILENE'S DEPARTMENT STORE, ET AL.,

                                Defendants, Appellees.


                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

                    [Hon. Walter Jay Skinner, U.S. District Judge]
                                              ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                 Breyer, Chief Judge,
                                         ___________
                           Campbell, Senior Circuit Judge,
                                     ____________________
                               and Cyr, Circuit Judge.
                                        _____________

                                 ____________________

            Jo Whigham on brief pro se.
            __________
            A. John  Pappalardo, United States Attorney, and Thomas E. Kanwit,
            ___________________                              ________________
        Assistant United States Attorney, on Motion for Summary Affirmance  of
        defendant/appellee Wayne Budd.
            Julie   J.   Bernard  on   Motion  for   Summary  Affirmance   for
            ____________________
        defendant/appellee, New England Telephone and Telegraph Company.


                                 ____________________

                                  August 27, 1992
                                 ____________________





















                 Per Curiam.    The judgment  of  the district  court  is
                 __________

            affirmed for  substantially the  same reasons  stated in  the

            district court's February 17, 1992 order.  

                       

                                         











































                                         -2-