November 18, 1994     [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                              _________________________

          No. 94-1305

                            CRAIG CHEVROLET, INC., ET AL.,

                               Plaintiffs, Appellants,

                                          v.

                             GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION,

                                 Defendant, Appellee.

                              _________________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                              FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE

                     [Hon. Morton A. Brody, U.S. District Judge]
                                            ___________________
                       [Hon. Gene Carter, U.S. District Judge]
                                          ___________________

                              _________________________

                                        Before

                                Selya, Circuit Judge,
                                       _____________

                            Bownes, Senior Circuit Judge,
                                    ____________________

                               and Cyr, Circuit Judge.
                                        _____________

                              _________________________

               Ralph A. Dyer for appellants.
               _____________
               Daniel L. Goldberg, with whom Lawrence S. Buonomo, Edward W.
               __________________            ___________________  _________
          Risko, and Bingham, Dana & Gould were on brief, for appellee.
          _____      _____________________

                              _________________________



                              _________________________





















                    Per Curiam.  In  this case, plaintiffs-appellants Craig
                    __________

          Chevrolet,  Inc.  and  Norman S.  Craig  sued  defendant-appellee

          General Motors  Corporation (GM) for  damages arising out  of (a)

          appellants' purchase  of a  Chevrolet franchise in  Island Falls,

          Maine,  and  (b)  the   subsequent  failure  of  that  franchise.

          Appellants' amended  complaint  contained  no  fewer  than  eight

          separate statements of claim, two of which were later voluntarily

          dismissed.  The remaining six statements of claim included counts

          for  intentional misrepresentation,  negligent misrepresentation,

          breach of contract,  negligent infliction of emotional  distress,

          violation of the Maine Dealer  Protection Statute, Me. Rev. Stat.

          Ann. tit. 10    1171-1186 (West 1980 & Supp. 1993), and violation

          of the federal Automobile Dealers' Day in Court Act, 15 U.S.C.   

          1221-1225  (1988).    In  a pretrial  order,  the  district court

          (Brody,  U.S.D.J.)  granted summary  judgment  on  four of  these

          claims.   See Fed. R. Civ. P.56.   The case proceeded to trial on
                    ___

          the remaining  two claims.   At the  close of  the evidence,  the

          district court (Carter, U.S.D.J.) granted the  defendant's motion

          for judgment as a matter of law.  See Fed. R. Civ. P.50(b).  This
                                            ___

          appeal ensued.

                    We have  carefully reviewed  both the summary  judgment

          record   and  the  trial  transcript.     In  addition,  we  have

          entertained oral argument, studied  the parties' briefs, read the

          district court's decisions,  and researched  the applicable  law.

          We  conclude,  without serious  question,  that  the lower  court

          appropriately entered  judgment in  GM's favor.   Accordingly, we


                                          2
















          affirm the



          judgment for  substantially the  reasons stated in  Judge Brody's

          and Judge Carter's rulings.1



          Affirmed.
          Affirmed.
          ________



































                              
          ____________________

               1Judge Brody's  rescript accepts  in large part,  and relies
          upon, a  report and  recommendation of Magistrate  Judge Beaulieu
          dated January 25, 1994.   To that extent, we,  too, approve Judge
          Beaulieu's recommendation.

                                          3