March 18, 1994        [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]


                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT



                                 ___________________


          No. 93-1825

            


                                  ROBERT A. GILLIN,

                                Plaintiff, Appellant,

                                          v.

                             U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY,

                                 Defendant, Appellee.

                                  __________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

                   [Hon. Steven J. McAuliffe, U.S. District Judge]
                                              ___________________

                                 ___________________

                                        Before

                                 Breyer, Chief Judge,
                                         ___________
                         Torruella and Selya, Circuit Judges.
                                              ______________

                                 ___________________

               Robert A. Gillin on brief pro se.
               ________________
               Peter E.  Papps, United  States Attorney, and  Gretchen Leah
               _______________                                _____________
          Witt, First Assistant U.S. Attorney, on brief for appellee.
          ____



                                  __________________

                                  __________________

















                      Per Curiam.  Plaintiff brought a  pro se action for
                      __________                        ___ __

            declaratory relief  under the  Freedom of Information  Act, 5

            U.S.C.   552  ("FOIA"), claiming that the  United States Army

            Corps of  Engineers wrongfully denied him access  to a number

            of  documents  which  he  asked   to  review  relating  to  a

            construction permit issued by the Corps.  The  district court

            granted summary judgment  to the defendant on the ground that

            plaintiff had failed to raise a substantial issue relating to

            the  reasonableness of  the Corps'  search for  the documents

            requested.  Although plaintiff insisted that the Corps' files

            should  contain  additional  documents,  the  Corps' detailed

            affidavits  asserted  that  it  had  produced  all  documents
                                                           ___

            relating to  the subject permit and explained  the absence of

            other  documents.    The  court observed  that  the  crux  of

            plaintiff's disagreement with the Corps apparently relates to

            his  perception  that the  permit  was  improperly issued,  a

            matter not  reviewable  under the  guise of  an FOIA  action.

            Reviewing the dismissal de  novo, we agree with the  district
                                    __  ____

            court's analysis and affirm substantially for the reasons set

            forth in  Judge McAuliffe's thorough memorandum  and order of

            May 28,  1993.  We  also find no  abuse of discretion  in the

            district court's stay of discovery pending the outcome of the

            summary judgment motion.

                      Affirmed.
                      ________

                         



                                         -2-



































































                                         -3-