USCA1 Opinion

        September 23, 1996      [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]



                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT







                                 ____________________





        No. 96-1552



                                   JOHN J. O'HEARN,



                                Plaintiff, Appellant,



                                          v.



                    MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER AND SMITH, INC.,



                                 Defendant, Appellee.





                                 ____________________



                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT



                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS



                       [Hon. Mark L. Wolf, U.S. District Judge]
                                           ___________________





                                 ____________________



                                        Before



                                Torruella, Chief Judge,
                                           ___________

                            Cyr and Stahl, Circuit Judges.
                                           ______________



                                 ____________________



            John J. O'Hearn, Jr. on brief pro se.
            ____________________

            Thomas Paul  Gorman, Bryan  G. Killian  and Sherin  and Lodgen  on
            ___________________  _________________      __________________

        brief for appellee.





                                 ____________________





                                 ____________________































                      Per Curiam.    Plaintiff-appellant O'Hearn  appeals
                      __________



            from   the  dismissal  of   his  amended  complaint  alleging



            discrimination on the basis  of religion and sex, as  well as



            negligent,  intentional, and  business torts.   Reviewing the



            dismissal de novo, and  considering the parties' arguments on
                      __ ____



            appeal, we  find no substantial  reason to disagree  with the



            district court's conclusion, under  Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6),



            that  the  amended  complaint   failed  to  state  a  legally



            cognizable claim.  



                      As  to appellant's assignments of procedural error,



            upon  examination of the record  we conclude:   (1) The court



            did not  abuse its discretion by  denying appellant's motions



            for  an appointment  of counsel;  (2) appellant  was afforded



            sufficient  opportunities to  amend  the  complaint; (3)  the



            court  did not  err  in resolving  the  Rule 12(b)(6)  motion



            without  an oral  hearing, as  appellant did  not demonstrate



            that the motion could not  be fairly and effectively  "heard"



            on  the papers.   See United States  v. McGill, 11  F.3d 223,
                              ___ _____________     ______



            225-26 (1st Cir. 1993).



                      Appellant's motion  for oral argument on  appeal is



            denied.  The judgment below is affirmed.   See Loc. R. 27.1.
            ______                         ________























                                         -2-