USCA1 Opinion

          September 14, 1995

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]



                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                       



                                 ____________________





        No. 94-2271 



                                     ERIC DAVIS,



                                Plaintiff, Appellant,



                                          v.



                                    DAVID BERUBE,



                                 Defendant, Appellee.





                                 ____________________



                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT



                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE





                   [Hon. Steven J. McAuliffe, U.S. District Judge]
                                              ___________________



                                 ____________________



                                        Before



                                Torruella, Chief Judge,
                                           ___________

                           Selya and Lynch, Circuit Judges.
                                            ______________



                                 ____________________



            Eric Davis on brief pro se.
            __________

            Jeffrey  R.  Howard,   Attorney  General,  and  Wynn  E.   Arnold,
            ___________________                             _________________

        Assistant  Attorney General,  on Motion  for Summary  Disposition, for

        appellee.





                                 ____________________





                                 ____________________





























                 Per Curiam.  The judgment is affirmed substantially  for
                 __________



            the reasons recited by the Magistrate-Judge in his Report and



            Recommendation  dated  November  17,  1994.    We  add   that



            plaintiff  has  done  nothing  to  call  into  question   the



            conclusion--elsewhere  reached by  the New  Hampshire Supreme



            Court--that the  state's parole statute, see  N.H. Rev. Stat.
                                                     ___



            Ann.     651-A:6 (Supp.  1994),  and  the accompanying  Adult



            Parole Board Rules, fail to  create a 14th Amendment  liberty



            interest with regard to  the denial of parole.   See Bussiere
                                                             ___ ________



            v.  Cunningham,  132  N.H.  747,  752-54  (1990);  Baker   v.
                __________                                     _____



            Cunningham,  128  N.H.  374,  380-81  (1986);  see  generally
            __________                                     ______________



            Greenholtz v. Inmates of the Nebraska Penal and  Correctional
            __________    _______________________________________________



            Complex, 442 U.S. 1, 7 (1979).
            _______



                 Affirmed.
                 _________