October 5, 1994
                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]


                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                                 ____________________


        No. 94-1632 

                                   LAWRENCE CURTIN,

                                Plaintiff, Appellant,

                                          v.

                               JUDGE VINCENT F. LEAHY,

                                 Defendant, Appellee.


                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

                    [Hon. Richard G. Stearns, U.S. District Judge]

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                Cyr, Boudin and Stahl,
                                   Circuit Judges.
                                   ______________

                                 ____________________

            Lawrence Curtin on brief pro se.
            _______________
            Scott  Harshbarger,  Attorney General,  and  Rebecca  P. McIntyre,
            __________________                           ____________________
        Assistant Attorney General, on Motion for Summary Affirmance.


                                 ____________________


                                 ____________________





















                      Per Curiam.   Appellant contends he  was denied due
                      __________

            process  in  a  state  court proceeding  because  a  judgment

            entered against  him without  service ever having  been made.

            Appellant  claims he did not learn of the judgment until long

            after the time  to appeal  had expired, and  the state  court

            judge  subsequently refused  during  a  telephone inquiry  to

            reopen the case.   Apparently believing  no avenue of  relief

            was available within the  state court system, appellant filed

            the present civil rights action against the state court judge

            and  asked  the federal  court to  enjoin enforcement  of the

            state   court  judgment.     The  district   court  dismissed

            appellant's action.

                      We  affirm  the  dismissal  because  appellant  has

            failed  to  state a  claim  for  deprivation of  due  process

            cognizable  under    1983.   Appellant  has not  attacked the

            constitutionality or sufficiency of  Massachusetts procedures

            for  service  or  setting   aside  judgments.    Rather,  his

            complaint is that these procedures were, or will be, misused.

            Massachusetts,  however, affords  a procedure  for correcting

            errors of the sort  alleged through a motion for  relief from

            judgment,  Mass. R. Dom. Rel.  P. 60(b), and  an appeal, were

            such a  motion denied.  Massachusetts  therefore provides its

            litigants due  process.  See  McCulloch v. County  of Washoe,
                                     ___  ______________________________

            720  F.2d 1020, 1021 (9th  Cir. 1983) (even  if plaintiff was

            never served  with process  and state court  default judgment



















            entered  improperly,  state procedure  for  vacating judgment

            affords adequate due process; consequently,  plaintiff failed

            to state a claim for relief under   1983). 

                      Affirmed.
                      ________













































                                         -3-