February 24, 1995
                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                 ____________________


        No. 94-1696 

                                 ANGEL LUIS FIGUEROA,

                                Plaintiff, Appellant,

                                          v.

                        SPECIAL AGENT JAMES J. DOYLE, ET AL.,

                                Defendants, Appellees.


                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

                   [Hon. Edward F. Harrington, U.S. District Judge]
                                               ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

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

                                 ____________________

            Angel Figueroa on brief pro se.
            ______________
            Donald  K. Stern, United States Attorney, and Susan M. Poswistilo,
            ________________                              ___________________
        Assistant United States Attorney, on brief for appellees.


                                 ____________________


                                 ____________________
























                 Per  Curiam.  On October 12, 1993, we remanded this case
                 ___________

            so  that plaintiff  (as he  had  requested) might  attempt to

            amend  his complaint  to state  a claim  under Bivens  v. Six
                                                           ______     ___

            Unknown Named Agents, 403  U.S. 388 (1971).  See  Figueroa v.
            ____________________                         ___  ________

            DEA,  7  F.3d  218  (1st Cir.  1993)  (table)  (per  curiam).
            ___

            Plaintiff  thereafter failed  to  do so,  and  took no  other

            action  apart from submitting a change of address form to the

            district court.  On April 21, 1994, defendants filed a motion

            to  dismiss  under  Fed. R.  Civ.  P.  41(b)  for failure  to

            prosecute.   Plaintiff filed no opposition,  and the district

            court  granted  the  motion on  May  19,  1994.   Having  now

            appealed from  this ruling,  plaintiff makes no  reference to

            the Rule 41(b) dismissal in his principal brief.  Only in his

            reply brief does he attempt an explanation, alleging that (1)

            he  had  assumed  the   district  court  would  initiate  the

            necessary further  proceedings, and  (2) he never  received a

            copy  of  the  defendants'  motion to  dismiss  (despite  the

            appearance therein of a proper certificate of service).

                 We affirm.  By failing to  seek reconsideration below (a

            measure he has  employed earlier in this litigation),  and by

            failing  to  challenge  the   Rule  41(b)  dismissal  in  his

            principal brief  on appeal,  plaintiff has waived  the issue.

            See,  e.g., Rivera-Muriente v.  Agosto-Alicea, 959  F.2d 349,
            ___   ____  _______________     _____________

            354 (1st  Cir. 1992) ("It is  well settled in  this court ...

            that  a  legal  argument  made  for  the  first  time  in  an





















            appellant's  reply  brief  comes too  late  and  need not  be

            addressed.").  We add that invocation of the waiver rule here

            would work no injustice, inasmuch as plaintiff's  substantive

            claim (upon which he has elaborated in his appellate  papers)

            appears  entirely meritless.  By way of the instant attack on

            the forfeiture of his assets, plaintiff is seeking  simply to

            challenge  the sufficiency  of  the  evidence supporting  his

            underlying   conviction--a   challenge  we   have  decisively

            rejected in the past.  See Figueroa v. United States, 19 F.3d
                                   ___ ________    _____________

            7  (1st  Cir. 1994)  (table) (per  curiam); United  States v.
                                                        ______________

            Figueroa, 976 F.2d 1446 (1st Cir. 1992), cert. denied, 113 S.
            ________                                 ____________

            Ct. 1346 (1993).

                 Affirmed.
                 _________



























                                         -3-