USCA1 Opinion

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]


                           UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                ____________________



       No. 97-1203 


                                JOHN S. NORTON, SR.,


                                Plaintiff, Appellant,


                                         v.


                                TOWN OF LONG ISLAND,


                                Defendant, Appellee.


                                ____________________



                    APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT


                              FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE


                     [Hon. D. Brock Hornby, U.S. District Judge]


                                ____________________


                                       Before


                               Selya, Boudin and Stahl,

                                   Circuit Judges.


                                ____________________


            John S. Norton on brief pro se.

            John S. Whitman
                          , Carol I. Eisenberg
                                               and 
                                                   Richardson, Whitman, Large

       & Badger, on brief for appellee.



                                ____________________


                                    JULY 29, 1997

                                ____________________







                      Per Curiam
                               . We have carefully reviewed the record on


            appeal and affirm on grounds of issue preclusion. In a prior



            suit, the appellant was given the opportunity to fully litigate


            the issue of whether his claims are cognizable under the Civil


            Rights Act. The judgment against the appellant in the prior


            suit bars him from re-litigating the issue here.


                      Affirmed. Loc. R. 27.1.

































                                


               The appellant's motion for oral argument is hereby denied.

            Oral argument would not advance the decisional process.   See

            1st Cir. Loc. R. 34.1.


                                         -2-