June 14, 1995           [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT 











                                 ____________________





        No. 94-1809



                                    JIRAH KELLEY,



                                Plaintiff, Appellant,



                                          v.



                              LARRY E. DUBOISE, 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.
                                           ___________

                          Selya and Boudin, Circuit Judges.
                                            ______________



                                 ____________________



            Jirah Kelley on brief pro se.
            ____________

            Ann  M. McCarthy,  Counsel for  the Department  of  Correction, On
            ________________

        Memorandum In Support of Motion for Summary Disposition for appellees.





                                 ____________________



                                 ____________________

          















































                      Per  Curiam.      Jirah  Kelley  is  appealing  the
                      ___________



            district  court's denial  of  certain motions  in his  action



            brought under 42 U.S.C.    1983.  We dismiss  Kelley's appeal



            of  the court's denial of  his motion for  a default judgment



            (also  characterized  as a  motion  for  summary judgment  by



            default)  for want of jurisdiction.   See Bird  v. Reese, 875
                                                  ___ ____     _____



            F.2d  256, 256  (9th Cir.  1989)  (denial of  a motion  for a



            default judgment is not immediately  appealable).  Construing



            Kelley's  motion for  a  protective order  as  a request  for



            preliminary injunctive  relief, we  affirm the denial  of the



            motion.     Kelley  apparently  sought  an  order  forbidding



            defendants  from retaliating  against  him  for  having  sued



            defendants.  We affirm  since the motion failed to  show that



            Kelley  was under any present threat of such retaliation.  We



            deny Kelley's other requests for relief as meritless.  



                      Dismissed   in   part   for   want   of   appellate
                      ___________________________________________________



            jurisdiction and affirmed in part.
            __________________________________







































                                         -2-