USCA1 Opinion

          January 17, 1995      [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT




                                 ___________________


          No. 94-1741

            


                                    MUSHEER HASAN,

                                Plaintiff, Appellant,

                                          v.

                              RED AND WHITE CAB COMPANY,

                                 Defendant, Appellee.


                                  __________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

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

                                 ___________________

                                        Before

                               Torruella, Chief Judge,
                                          ___________
                          Boudin and Stahl, Circuit Judges.
                                            ______________

                                 ___________________

               Musheer Hasan on brief pro se.
               _____________
               Stephen M. Ouellette and Cianciulli & Ouellette on brief for
               ____________________     ______________________
          appellee.



                                  __________________

                                  __________________



















                      Per Curiam.   Appellant Musheer Hasan appeals  from
                      __________

            the  dismissal by the district  court of his  complaint.  The

            court dismissed  the action  as frivolous  under 28  U.S.C.  

            1915(d).   Upon  a review of  the record  and the  briefs and

            filings  of the  parties, we  agree with  the court  that the

            action lacked "an  arguable basis"  in law.   See Neitzke  v.
                                                          ___ _______

            Williams,  490 U.S.  319,  325  (1989).    In  so  doing,  we
            ________

            emphasize that appellee  Red &  White Cab Co.,  as a  private

            entity, cannot be sued for alleged  constitutional violations

            under 42 U.S.C.    1983.  See Jackson v.  Metropolitan Edison
                                      ___ _______     ___________________

            Co., 419  U.S. 345, 350 (1974) (the fact  that a business may
            ___

            be  subject to  state regulation  is not  enough to  turn its

            actions  into  those of  the state  for  purposes of  a civil

            rights suit).

                      Further, under the Americans with Disabilities Act,

            a person such as appellant may  not assert a cause of  action

            for damages.  The  Act specifies that the remedies  set forth

            in  42  U.S.C.     2000a-3(a)  are  the  ones  available  for

            violations of  the Act.   See  42 U.S.C.    12188(a)(1).   In
                                      ___

            turn,    2000a-3(a)  provides for  an action  for "preventive

            relief,"  including  requests  for injunctions  or  temporary

            restraining  orders.  Damages are not a remedy under   2000a-

            3(a).  Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises, Inc., 390 U.S. 400,
                   ______    _____________________________

            402 (1968) (per curiam).





                                         -2-

















                      Finally, if the district court  had no jurisdiction

            with respect to the  federal claims, it appropriately refused

            to  take jurisdiction  of the  state breach  of contract  and

            statutory claims.  See United Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U.S.
                               ___ ___________________    _____

            715, 726 (1966).

                      Based on  the foregoing, we affirm  the judgment of
                                                  ______

            the district court.  Accordingly, appellant's pending motions

            are denied as moot.   
                ______

             



































                                         -3-