USCA1 Opinion

      [NOT FOR PUBLICATION--NOT TO BE CITED AS PRECEDENT]

                 United States Court of Appeals

                     For the First Circuit











No. 98-1666



                          YEMI ONAYEMI,



                      Plaintiff, Appellant,



                                v.



                         MED MANAGEMENT,



                       Defendant, Appellee.







           APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT



                FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS



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







                              Before



                     Selya, Stahl and Lynch,

                        Circuit Judges.

                                

                                





     Yemi Onayemi on Motion for Reactivation/Reconsideration pro

se.











October 13, 1998







                                

                                









            Per Curiam.  We grant appellant's motion to reinstate

  this appeal.  However, the appeal is limited to the district

  court's denial of appellant's motion for examination of special

  issues since this is the only order as to which the May 26,

  1998 notice of appeal (the sole notice of appeal in the record)

  is timely.  Because the appeal of this order does not present

  a substantial question, we dispose of it now.

             As this motion essentially sought further discovery,

  we treat it as one filed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(f).  To be

  entitled to Rule 56(f) relief, a party "must (1) articulate a

  plausible basis for the belief that discoverable materials

  exist which would raise a trialworthy issue and (2) demonstrate

  good cause for failure to have conducted discovery earlier." 

  Reid v. State of New Hampshire, 56 F.3d 332, 341 (1st Cir. 1995)

  (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).  The district

  court's denial of such a motion is reviewed for abuse of

  discretion.  Public Serv. Co. of New Hampshire v. Hudson Light

  & Power Dep't, 938 F.2d 338, 346 (1st Cir. 1991).

             It is plain that appellant has not met the second

  requirement in this case.  That is, he failed to provide anyexplanation in the motion as to why he waited over two months

  after the district court had entered summary judgment to

  request further discovery.  We find, as a result, that the

  district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the

  motion.

  

                                -2-

             The judgment of the district court is summarily

  affirmed.  See Local Rule 27.1.