[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]


                                 ___________________


        No. 94-1363

                                 JERRY WILLIAM WEBER,

                                Plaintiff, Appellant,

                                          v.

                                 MARTIN A. MAGNUSSON,

                                 Defendant, Appellee.


                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                              FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE

                   [Hon. Eugene W. Beaulieu, U.S. Magistrate Judge]
                                             _____________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                Selya, Cyr and Boudin,
                                   Circuit Judges.
                                   ______________

                                 ____________________

            Jerry William Weber on brief pro se.
            ___________________
            Michael   E.  Carpenter,   Attorney  General,   and  Diane  Sleek,
            _______________________                              ____________
        Assistant Attorney General, on brief for appellee.


                                 ____________________

                                  September 2, 1994
                                 ____________________





























                      Per  Curiam.    Plaintiff-appellant  Jerry  William
                      ___________

            Weber,  a Maine  inmate,  filed a  pro  se complaint  in  the

            district court, pursuant to 42  U.S.C.   1983, against Martin

            A.  Magnusson, the  warden of  the Maine  State Prison.   The

            complaint alleges violations of  Weber's right to free speech

            under  the First Amendment and to  equal protection under the

            Fourteenth Amendment.  Appellee  Magnusson filed a motion for

            summary judgment with respect  to both claims.  On  March 16,

            1994,  a magistrate  judge ("magistrate")  granted appellee's

            motion in its entirety.  This appeal followed.

                      We  have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the

            record on appeal.  We affirm the grant of summary judgment in

            favor of appellee  on the free  speech claim for  essentially

            the reasons stated  by the  magistrate.  We  also affirm  the

            grant of summary judgment  in favor of appellee on  the equal

            protection claim.  Based on the undisputed facts, we think it

            is plain that the challenged regulation is reasonably related

            to a legitimate penal interest.  Moreover, to the extent that

            Weber's  affidavit and  documentary evidence  raise  an issue

            whether  child  molesters  as   a  group  are  being  treated

            differently  from murderers  by prison  officials, they  also

            demonstrate  that  the  explanation  for this  difference  in

            treatment  is  rational  and  reasonably  related to  Maine's

            proper interest in protecting the security of inmates.  Under

            the circumstances,  appellee is  entitled to judgment  on the



                                         -2-















            equal protection  claim as a  matter of  law.   See O'Bar  v.
                                                            ___ _____

            Pinion, 953  F.2d  74, 81  (4th  Cir. 1991)  (observing  that
            ______

            "[t]he  state   may  apply  the  law   differently  based  on

            distinctive  factual  circumstances  if  the  distinction  is

            rationally related to a legitimate governmental purpose"). 

                      Affirmed.
                      _________









































                                         -3-