USCA1 Opinion

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]



                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT



                                 ____________________





        No. 96-1011



                                  LORRAINE L. SMITH,



                                Plaintiff, Appellant,



                                          v.



                            COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS,

                       MASSACHUSETTS REHABILITATION COMMISSION,



                                 Defendant, Appellee.



                                 ____________________





                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT



                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS



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



                                 ____________________



                                        Before



                                Selya, Cyr, and Boudin,

                                   Circuit Judges.
                                   ______________



                                 ____________________



            Lorraine L. Smith on brief pro se.
            _________________

            Scott  Harshbarger,   Attorney  General,  and  Dorothy   Anderson,
            __________________                             __________________

        Assistant Attorney General, on brief for appellee.





                                 ____________________



                                   August 23, 1996

                                 ____________________



































                      Per Curiam.   Plaintiff Lorraine  L. Smith  appeals
                      __________



            pro se  from a summary judgment in favor of her employer, the
            ___ __



            Massachusetts  Rehabilitation  Commission.     Smith  alleged



            discrimination  on the basis of  gender in the  denial of her



            application  for a  promotion to  one or  both of  two newly-



            created supervisory positions.  



                      Reviewing the dismissal de  novo, and after careful
                                              __  ____



            consideration of  the parties' arguments on  appeal, we agree



            with  the district court's  analysis and affirm substantially



            for the reasons set forth in its thorough memorandum opinion.



                      The  judgment  is  affirmed.   See  Loc.  R.  27.1.
                                         ________    ___



            Appellant's motion for reconsideration  of the order  denying



            her motion to "admit new evidence on appeal" is denied.
                                                            ______























































                                         -2-