USCA1 Opinion

       [NOT FOR PUBLICATION NOT TO BE CITED AS PRECEDENT]

                 United States Court of Appeals

                     For the First Circuit









No. 98-2042



                        CHARLES RICHARDS,



                      Plaintiff, Appellant,



                                v.



                  TRUSTEES OF THE UNIVERSITY OF

                 MASSACHUSETTS, AMHERST, ET AL.,



                      Defendants, Appellees.







           APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT



                FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS



            [Hon. Nancy Gertner, U.S. District Judge]







                              Before



                      Stahl, Circuit Judge,

                Campbell, Senior Circuit Judge,

                   and Lynch, Circuit Judge.

                                

                                

                                

     Charles Richards on brief pro se.

     Geoffrey B. McCullough on brief for appellees Trustees of the

University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

     Robert B. Smith on brief for appellees Trustees of Boston

University.

     Alan D. Rose, Alan D. Rose, Jr. and Rose & Associates on brief

for appellees Trustees of the University of Pennsylvania.

     Donald K. Stern, United States Attorney, and John A. Capin,

Assistant U.S. Attorney, on brief for appellee United States

Department of Education.









June 21, 1999







                                

                                

            Per Curiam.  The judgment of dismissal is summarily

  affirmed on the ground that plaintiff has failed to state a

  claim.  See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).  We reject the assertion

  that the district court acted "prematurely," and we find in any

  event that plaintiff has had ample opportunity to set forth his

  allegations.  Having scrutinized his various submissions, we

  agree, for the reasons enumerated by defendants and relied on

  by the district court, that dismissal was warranted.  With all

  of plaintiff's well-pled factual averments accepted as true and

  with all reasonable inferences drawn in his favor, no basis for

  recovery has been established--whether under 42 U.S.C.  1983

  or any of the other cited statutory provisions.  See, e.g.,

  Rockwell v. Cape Cod Hosp., 26 F.3d 254, 260-61 (1st Cir. 1994);

  The Dartmouth Review v. Dartmouth College, 889 F.2d 13, 16 (1st

  Cir. 1989).

            Affirmed.  See Loc. R. 27.1.