February 22, 1995     [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT




                                 ____________________

          No. 94-1715

                                   ANTHONY DEPAOLO,

                                Plaintiff - Appellant,

                                          v.

                                FREDERICK MARTIN, AND
                         CAPE COD REGIONAL TRANSIT AUTHORITY,

                               Defendants - Appellees.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

                     [Hon. Robert E. Keeton, U.S. District Judge]
                                             ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                               Torruella, Chief Judge,
                                          ___________

                            Bownes, Senior Circuit Judge,
                                    ____________________

                              and Stahl, Circuit Judge.
                                         _____________

                                _____________________

               John N. Lewis,  with whom Ravech,  Aronson, Shuman &  Lewis,
               _____________             __________________________________
          P.C., was on brief for appellant.
          ____
               Darrell Mook, with whom  Burns & Levinson, was on  brief for
               ____________             ________________
          appellees.



                                 ____________________


                                 ____________________

















                    Per  Curiam.    Plaintiff-Appellant,   Anthony  DePaolo
                    Per  Curiam
                    ___________

          ("DePaolo"), appeals the district court's jury instruction to the

          effect that  he could be  found comparatively  negligent for  not

          wearing  a  bicycle helmet.   DePaolo  failed  to object  to this

          instruction  subsequent to  the  jury charge  and,  consequently,

          waived that objection pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

          51.  Wartski v. Bedford, 926 F.2d 11, 21-22 (1st  Cir. 1991); Coy
               _______    _______                                       ___

          v.  Simpson Marine Safety Equip.,  Inc., 787 F.2d  19, 25-26 (1st
              ___________________________________

          Cir. 1986).  In the absence of compliance with Rule 51, we review

          only  for plain  error amounting to  a "miscarriage  of justice."

          Elgabri v. Lekas, 964 F.2d  1255, 1259 (1st Cir. 1992).   We have
          _______    _____

          reviewed the instructions given by the district court and find no

          plain error.  

                    Affirmed.
                    ________