[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]



                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT



                                 ____________________





        No. 96-1581



                                 DENNIS J. BELDOTTI,

                                Plaintiff, Appellant,



                                          v.



                                GWEN BOISVERT, ET AL.,

                                Defendants, Appellees.

                                 ____________________



                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT



                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS



                   [Hon. Robert B. Collings, U.S. Magistrate Judge]

                                 ____________________



                                        Before



                                Torruella, Chief Judge,
                                           ___________

                           Selya and Stahl, Circuit Judges.
                                            ______________

                                 ____________________



            Dennis J. Beldotti on brief pro se.
            __________________

            Scott Harshbarger,  Attorney  General,  and  Gregory  I.  Massing,
            _________________                            ____________________

        Assistant Attorney  General, Criminal  Bureau, on brief  for appellees

        William Delahunt and Gerald Pudolsky.

            Scott  Harshbarger,  Attorney  General,  and  Howard R.  Meshnick,
            __________________                            ___________________

        Assistant  Attorney General,  Trial Division,  on brief  for appellees

        Gwen Boisvert, William McCabe, Charles Barry, and James Sharkey.

            Bruce R. Henry, Thomas M. Elcock,  and Morrison, Mahoney &  Miller
            ______________  ________________       ___________________________

        on brief for appellee Glover Memorial Hospital.

            Brian  Rogal and  Law Offices  of Timothy  M. Burke  on brief  for
            ____________      _________________________________

        appellee Brian O'Hara.

            David C.  Jenkins  and Dwyer  &  Jenkins  on brief  for  appellees
            _________________      _________________

        Thomas J. Leary, Michael F. O'Toole and Albert P. Droney.

            William J. Dailey, Jr., Robert G.  Eaton, Janet Nally Barnes,  and
            ______________________  ________________  __________________

        Sloane and Walsh on brief for appellee Jonathan Diamond, M.D.
        ________________



                                 ____________________



                                   October 29, 1996

                                 ____________________

































                      Per  Curiam.   On de  novo review of the issues, we
                      ___________       __  ____



            agree  that  plaintiff's    1983  claims  are  barred by  the



            borrowed  three-year   state  limitations  period   for  tort



            actions.   The complaint seeks monetary  damages arising from



            the application  to plaintiff's  skin of a  chemical solution



            containing ortho-tolidine, a  potential carcinogen, during an



            investigatory search  for the presence of  occult (invisible)



            blood.  Plaintiff alleges  Fourth Amendment, due process, and



            other constitutional violations arising from the skin search,



            which  was  conducted in  August, 1988.    He does  not claim



            injury nor damages arising from his later criminal conviction



            and  imprisonment.   Thus  the    1983  claims stated  in the



            complaint accrued on the date that the search was  conducted,



            and  this  complaint,  filed  almost five  years  later,  was



            untimely.  See McIntosh v. Antonio, 71 F.3d 29, 34  (1st Cir.
                       ___ ________    _______



            1995).     While   the  magistrate's   opinion  raises   some



            interesting questions about how  a court might handle similar



            claims filed  during the pendency of  parallel state criminal



            proceedings, we  need not reach those  questions because this



            complaint  was filed  well  after the  state proceedings  had



            concluded. 



                      Plaintiff's allegation that he did not learn of the



            latent effects of ortho-tolidine until October 30, 1992, does



            not affect the accrual  date.  The gravamen of  plaintiff's  



            1983 claims is not a medical injury but the alleged injury to







                                         -2-





























            his constitutional rights  based on  the ortho-tolidine  skin



            search.  It is beyond  dispute that when the skin  search was



            conducted plaintiff had sufficient notice of all of the facts



            necessary to  alert him to a  possible constitutional injury,



            as further demonstrated by  his assertion of Fourth Amendment



            motions  to suppress the test results  in his criminal trial.



            Through reasonable diligence during the limitations period he



            could  have discovered the  facts which  he states  were then



            well known in scientific  circles, and on which he  now seeks



            to  predicate  additional constitutional  injury  and damage.



            See Marrapese v. State, 749 F.2d 934, 937-38 (1st Cir. 1984),
            ___ _________    _____



            cert. denied, 474 U.S. 921 (1985).    
            ____________



                      Accordingly,  the judgment  below is  affirmed and,
                                                            ________



            as  no federal  issues remain,  the judgment  is modified  to
                                                             ________



            indicate that the pendent  state claims are dismissed without



            prejudice for lack of jurisdiction.











































                                         -3-