USCA1 Opinion

          February 16, 1995
                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
                           UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT





                                 ____________________


        No. 94-2115

                        EUGENE A. FREEMAN AND SANDRA FREEMAN,

                               Plaintiffs, Appellants,

                                          v.

                     LENARD SIMON, M.D. AND BETH ISRAEL HOSPITAL,

                                Defendants, Appellees.


                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

                     [Hon. A. David Mazzone, U.S. District Judge]
                                             ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

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

                                 ____________________

            Eugene Freeman on brief pro se.
            ______________
            Charles  J. Dunn,  Jr.,  Ann L.  Simoneau and  Dunn and  Rogers on
            _____________________    ________________      ________________
        brief for appellees.


                                 ____________________


                                 ____________________




















                      Per Curiam.    We  affirm for the reasons stated in
                      __________

            the district court's November  30, 1993 memorandum and order.

            At  best,  plaintiffs' pleadings  set  forth  state law  tort

            causes   of  action   over  which   a  federal   court  lacks

            jurisdiction  absent complete  diversity of  citizenship, and

            plaintiffs  failed adequately  to allege  complete diversity.

            As  for plaintiffs'  purported    1983 claims,  neither state

            licensing nor  receipt of public funds  would make defendants

            state actors liable to suit under  42 U.S.C.   1983.  Blum v.
                                                                  ____

            Yaretsky,  457  U.S.  991  (1982).    Plaintiffs'  claims  of
            ________

            conspiracy to  deny equal  protection were too  conclusory to

            state a cause of action under 42 U.S.C.   1985(3).

                      Affirmed.  
                      ________