USCA1 Opinion

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]



                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                 ____________________





        No. 97-2035





                                  FAROUK O. MARTINS,



                                Plaintiff, Appellant,



                                          v.



                         CHARLES HAYDEN GOODWILL INN SCHOOL,



                                 Defendant, Appellee.



                                 ____________________





                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT



                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS



                     [Hon. Robert E. Keeton, U.S. District Judge]
                                             ___________________



                                 ____________________



                                        Before



                                Torruella, Chief Judge,
                                           ___________

                           Selya and Stahl, Circuit Judges.
                                            ______________



                                 ____________________



            Farouk Martins on brief pro se.
            ______________

            Andrew L. Matz,  Bret A. Cohen and Stoneman, Chandler & Miller LLP
            ______________   _____________     _______________________________

        on brief for appellee.





                                 ____________________



                                   January 28, 1998

                                 ____________________





































                 Per  Curiam.  We  have reviewed the  parties' briefs and
                 ___________



            the record on appeal.   We affirm essentially for the reasons



            stated  in the district  court's memoranda and  orders, dated



            July 14, 1997 and July 28, 1997.



                 We deny  the appellee's request  that we enter  an order



            preventing appellant from further court action based upon the



            same underlying  facts.   Such  a  request is  more  properly



            addressed to  the district court  in the event of  any future



            filing.  We  decline to  remark upon  the appropriateness  of



            granting such a request and  leave it to the district court's



            discretion if and when the occasion for consideration arises.



                 Affirmed.  Loc. R. 27.1.
                 _________



























































                                         -2-