USCA1 Opinion

        February 3, 1994        [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                                 ____________________


        No. 93-1834 

                                   RICHARD T. ENO,

                                Plaintiff, Appellant,

                                          v.

              UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT,

                                 Defendant, Appellee.


                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

                     [Hon. Joseph L. Tauro, U.S. District Judge]
                                            ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

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

                                 ____________________

            Richard T. Eno on brief pro se.
            ______________
            A.  John  Pappalardo,  United  States  Attorney,  and  Suzanne  E.
            ____________________                                   ___________
        Durrell, Assistant United States Attorney, on brief for appellee.
        _______


                                 ____________________


                                 ____________________




























                      Per  Curiam.  We  have reviewed the  briefs and the
                      ___________

            record  on appeal.  The district court  order of May 6, 1993,

            which  denied appellant's motion to reinstate his lawsuit and

            to  consider appellant's motion for summary judgment filed in

            October  1990,  was   neither  erroneous  nor  an   abuse  of

            discretion.

                 Affirmed.
                 _________







































                                         -2-