USCA1 Opinion

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]



                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                 ____________________





        No. 96-1056





                                  KATHERINE FURTADO,



                                Plaintiff, Appellant,



                                          v.



                            COMMONWEALTH ELECTRIC, ET AL.,



                                Defendants, Appellees.

                                 ____________________





                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT



                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS



                   [Hon. Reginald C. Lindsay, U.S. District Judge]
                                              ___________________



                                 ____________________



                                        Before



                                Torruella, Chief Judge,
                                           ___________

                          Boudin and Lynch, Circuit Judges.
                                            ______________

                                 ____________________



            Katherine Furtado on brief pro se.
            _________________

            David S. Rubin, N. Jay Shepherd, Kearns & Rubin, P.C. and  Michael
            ______________  _______________  ____________________      _______

        Hartnett  on  brief  for  appellees   Commonwealth  Electric  Company,
        ________

        Commonwealth  Energy System,  Douglas B.  Miller,  Russell D.  Wright,

        Kevin Roberts, and Gerald Bowden.

            Robert D. Manning, Bryan C. Decker  and Angoff, Goldman,  Manning,
            _________________  _______________      __________________________

        Pyle,  & Wanger  P.C. on  brief for  appellees Brotherhood  of Utility
        _____________________

        Workers  of  New  England,  Local  333,  Andrew  Woodacre  and  Philip

        Trombley.



                                 ____________________



                                   August 14, 1996

                                 ____________________







































                      Per Curiam.   Upon de novo review we agree with the
                      __________         __ ____



            district court's decision to  dismiss the complaint  because,



            even  with plaintiff's  amendments,  it  fails to  articulate



            facts sufficient to sustain a cognizable claim.  The judgment



            is affirmed and  modified to reflect  that the state  claims,
               ________      ________



            and any  unexhausted  claims within  the  exclusive  original



            jurisdiction  of  an  administrative  agency,  are  dismissed



            without prejudice.



                      Affirmed as modified.
                      ________    ________