June 28, 1994         [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]


                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                 ___________________


          No. 94-1029

            


                                  RONALD L. BORDEN,

                                Plaintiff, Appellant,

                                          v.

                           FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION,

                                 Defendant, Appellee.

                                  __________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

                       [Hon. Rya W. Zobel, U.S. District Judge]
                                           ___________________

                                 ___________________

                                        Before

                             Torruella, Selya and Stahl,
                                   Circuit Judges.
                                   ______________

                                 ___________________

               Ronald L. Borden on brief pro se.
               ________________
               Frank  W.  Hunger,  Assistant Attorney  General,  Donald  K.
               _________________                                 __________
          Stern, United States Attorney,  John F. Daly and Douglas  Ross on
          _____                           ____________     _____________
          brief for appellee.



                                  __________________

                                  __________________


















                                  

                      Per Curiam.  Plaintiff appeals the dismissal of his
                      __________

            complaint, without  prejudice, for  failure to state  a claim

            under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C.   552 ("FOIA")

            and the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C.   552a.  Plaintiff alleges that

            defendant  constructively  denied  his  written  request  for

            documents  by  failing to  sign  a receipt  for  the request.

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

            court  that the request  which plaintiff allegedly presented,

            attached as an  exhibit to  the complaint,  clearly fails  to

            comply  with published regulations.   See 28  C.F.R.    16.3,
                                                  ___

            1641;  see also  5 U.S.C.    552(a)(3), 552a(f) (agencies are
                   ________

            authorized to adopt  reasonable regulations for  presentation

            of requests). The request is not properly notarized, does not

            include other information  reasonably required to verify  the

            requester's  identity, and does  not reasonably  describe the

            records sought. See 28 C.F.R.    16.3(2),  1641(b)(d).  Since
                            ___

            the  complaint shows on its  face that the  plaintiff did not

            present a  proper request,  we need not  consider defendant's

            remaining arguments.          Accordingly, the judgment below

            is affirmed.
               ________











                                         -2-