March 17, 1995        [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT


                                 ____________________


        No. 94-1586 

                            ALFREDO HUALDE REDIN, ET AL.,

                               Plaintiffs, Appellants,

                                          v.

                             FIRST FEDERAL SAVINGS BANK,

                                 Defendant, Appellee.


                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO


                    [Hon. Raymond L. Acosta, U.S. District Judge]
                                             ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

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

                                 ____________________

            Paul Martin  Hualde,  Maria  Susana Costa  De Hualde  and  Alfredo
            ___________________   ______________________________       _______
        Hualde-Redin on brief pro se.
        ____________
            Juan Rafael Gonzalez Munoz on brief for appellee.
            __________________________


                                 ____________________


                                 ____________________






















                      Per  Curiam.    We  have reviewed  the  record  and
                      ___________

            conclude  that plaintiffs' action  was properly dismissed for

            the reasons  stated in the  magistrate's report.   We briefly

            add a few comments.

                      Plaintiffs are not entitled to the materials sought

            under the FOIA because  the FOIA does not apply to  states or

            Puerto Rico.  5 U.S.C.   551(1).  The district  court did not

            have jurisdiction  over plaintiffs' action under  12 U.S.C.  

            632.  Diaz  v. Pan American Fed. Sav. &  Loan Ass'n, 635 F.2d
                  ____     ____________________________________

            30  (1st Cir. 1980).  Nor did plaintiffs adequately plead any

            cause of  action under 42 U.S.C.    1985 or Puerto  Rico tort

            law.    We  have  considered all  of  plaintiffs'  arguments,

            including their contentions that  they were improperly denied

            discovery  materials,  that  the district  court  abused  its

            discretion  in  denying  plaintiffs'  motion to  amend  their

            complaint, that Judge Pieras'  recusal should be effective as

            of an earlier date, and that plaintiffs  were prejudiced when

            the district  court adopted the magistrate's  report prior to

            the date plaintiffs' objections  were due, and have  found no

            merit to the arguments.

                      Affirmed.
                      ________