April 1, 1993
                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]


                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                 ____________________


        No. 92-2270 

                                RAYMOND R. GADREAULT,

                                Plaintiff, Appellant,

                                          v.

                            HOWARD CASE, CHIEF OF POLICE,
                          PALMER POLICE DEPARTMENT, ET AL.,

                                Defendants, Appellees.


                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

                    [Hon. Frank H. Freedman, U.S. District Judge]
                                             ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                 Breyer, Chief Judge,
                                         ___________
                          Torruella and Cyr, Circuit Judges.
                                             ______________

                                 ____________________

            Raymond R. Gadreault on brief pro se.
            ____________________
            Kimberly M. Saillant and Morrison, Mahoney  & Miller on Motion for
            ____________________     ___________________________
        Summary Affirmance for appellees.


                                 ____________________


                                 ____________________














                      Per  Curiam.    Plaintiff argues  that  Briscoe  v.
                      ___________                             _______

            LaHue, 460 U.S. 325 (1983), is an unconstitutional  decision.
            _____

            As  a  lower federal  court, we  are  bound by  Supreme Court

            decisions    and    cannot    independently   assess    their

            constitutionality.   The judgment for  defendants is affirmed

            substantially for the  reasons stated by  the magistrate  and

            district court.

                      Affirmed.
                      ________