USCA1 Opinion

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]



                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                 ____________________





        No. 97-1517





                                 ROBERTO VIZCARRONDO,



                                Plaintiff, Appellant,



                                          v.



             BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE UNIVERSITY OF PUERTO RICO, ET AL.,



                                Defendants, Appellees.



                                 ____________________





                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT



                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO



                    [Hon. Hector M. Laffitte, U.S. District Judge]
                                              ___________________



                                 ____________________



                                        Before



                               Selya, Boudin and Lynch,

                                   Circuit Judges.
                                   ______________



                                 ____________________



            Roberto Vizcarrondo on brief pro se.
            ___________________

            Gustavo  A.  Gelpi and  Feldstein,  Gelpi  & Gotay  on  brief  for
            __________________      __________________________

        appellee Board of Trustees of the University of Puerto Rico.





                                 ____________________



                                      
                                   December 8, 1997

                                 ____________________





































                 Per  Curiam.    Pro se  plaintiff  Roberto  Vizcarrondo 
                 ___________     ___ __



            appeals a district  court judgment that dismissed  his claims



            for employment discrimination as time-barred.  This court has



            thoroughly reviewed  the record  and the  parties' briefs  on



            appeal.   We conclude that  the district court's  judgment is



            correct.   Plaintiff's  allegations wholly  fail  to state  a



            claim  for a  continuing violation.  See,  e.g., Morrison  v.
                                                 ___   ____  ________



            Carleton Woolen  Mills, Inc.,  108 F.3d  420,  443 (1st  Cir.
            ____________________________



            1997)); De Leon Otero v. Rubero, 820 F.2d 18, 19-20 (1st Cir.
                    _____________    ______



            1987); Collins v.  United Air Lines, Inc., 514  F.2d 594, 596
                   _______     ______________________



            (9th Cir. 1975)(refusal to reinstate employee does not render



            initial violation a  continuing one).  Plaintiff  has further



            failed   to  support   his  claim   for   equitable  tolling.



            Accordingly,  the judgment of the district court is summarily



            affirmed.  See Local Rule 27.1.1
                                           1
            ________   ___































                                
            ____________________



               1As we conclude that the district court's dismissal was in
               1

            all respects correct  on the merits, we need  not resolve the

            appellees' contention that this court lacks jurisdiction over

            plaintiff's appeal.   See United  States v. Stoller,  78 F.3d
                                  ___ ______________    _______

            710 (1st Cir.), cert. dismissed, 117 S.Ct. 378 (1996).  
                            _____ _________



                                         -2-