USCA1 Opinion

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]



                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                 ____________________





        No. 97-1565





                                   RONALD E. EGAN,



                                Plaintiff, Appellant,



                                          v.



                           ATHOL MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, ET AL.,



                                Defendants, Appellees.



                                 ____________________





                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT



                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS



                   [Hon. Nathaniel M. Gorton, U.S. District Judge]
                                              ___________________



                                 ____________________



                                        Before



                                Torruella, Chief Judge,
                                           ___________

                          Boudin and Stahl, Circuit Judges.
                                            ______________



                                 ____________________



            Ronald E. Egan on brief pro se.
            ______________

            Francis D.  Dibble, Jr., J. Michael Scully and Bulkley, Richardson
            _______________________  _________________     ___________________

        and Gelinas, LLP on brief for appellee Athol Memorial Hospital.
        ________________

            Gerard R. Laurence, Karyn  Polito and Milton, Laurence & Dixon  on
            __________________  _____________     ________________________

        brief for appellee Yong Min Chi, M.D.





                                 ____________________



                                   January 6, 1998

                                 ____________________

































                      Per Curiam.   After carefully reviewing  the record
                      __________



            and  the  parties'  briefs, we  affirm  the  district court's



            judgment for essentially the reasons stated in its Memorandum



            and  Order, dated March 28,  1997.  We  add only that summary



            judgment was proper on the antitrust claims because appellant



            failed  to  submit any  facts  from  which  the  court  could



            conclude, either directly  or by inference, that  the actions



            of the appellees harmed competition in any way.  See Benjamin
                                                             ___ ________



            v. Aroostook Med. Ctr., Inc., 113 F.3d 1, 1-2 (1st Cir. 1997)
               _________________________



            (per curiam).



                      Affirmed.  See Local Rule 27.1
                      ________   ___































































                                         -2-