USCA1 Opinion

       [NOT FOR PUBLICATION NOT TO BE CITED AS PRECEDENT]

                 United States Court of Appeals

                     For the First Circuit











No. 99-1131



                         ASYA ZIMBOVSKY,



                      Plaintiff, Appellant,



                                v.



                  COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS,



                       Defendant, Appellee.







           APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT



                FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS



             [Hon. Mark L. Wolf, U.S. District Judge]







                              Before



                    Selya, Boudin and Lynch,

                        Circuit Judges.

                                

                                

                                

                                

                                

     Asya Zimbovsky on brief pro se.











August 3, 1999







                                

                                





  

            Per Curiam.  Although this purports to be an appeal

  by plaintiff Asya Zimbovsky (who signed the complaint in the

  district court), the notice of appeal and the brief were signed

  by Anina Rasten, who refers to herself as a co-plaintiff,

  although Rasten did not sign the complaint.  Further, although

  the brief challenges the district court's order of December 7,

  1998, dismissing the complaint as frivolous, pursuant to 28

  U.S.C.  1915(e), the notice of appeal only references a

  December 29, 1998 order denying Rasten's motion to consolidate

  the instant case with a separate matter filed by Rasten (that,

  it appears, was, itself, dismissed).  Moreover, while the

  notice of appeal was timely from the one order that it did

  reference (the December 29 order), it was not timely from the

  only order (the December 7 order) that the brief addresses.

            In all events, there was neither error nor abuse of

  discretion in the district court's disposition of this case and

  its dismissal of the case and denial of the motion to

  consolidate are affirmed.

            The "motion to change caption" is denied.

            The orders of the district court are affirmed.  Loc.

  R. 27.1.