USCA1 Opinion

        October 11, 1996        [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]



                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT



                                 ____________________





        No. 96-1634



                                    NEIL GLOVER, 



                                 Plaintiff, Appellee,



                                          v.



                                 SGT. DAVID CRAWFORD,



                                Defendant, Appellant.



                                 ____________________





                     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 Stahl, Circuit Judges.
                                            ______________



                                 ____________________



            Jeffrey R. Howard, Attorney General,  and Ann F. Larney, Assistant
            _________________                         _____________

        Attorney General, on brief for appellant.

            Paul Bennett and Frank L. Bruno on brief for appellee.
            ____________     ______________





                                 ____________________





                                 ____________________





































                      Per  Curiam.    Appellant-defendant David  Crawford
                      ___________



            appeals  from  the district  court's  denial  of his  renewed



            motion for judgment as a matter  of law.  We summarily affirm
                                                         _________ ______



            the denial of the motion for substantially the reasons stated



            by the district court in its order dated May 24, 1996.



                      Affirmed.  See 1st Cir. R. 27.1.
                      ________   ___



















































































                                         -2-