March 24, 1995        [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                                 ____________________

        No. 94-1873
           

                                  ANTHONY SOLIMINE,
                                Plaintiff, Appellant,

                                          v.

                           FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION,
                                 Defendant, Appellee.

                                 ____________________

        No. 94-1995

                                  ANTHONY SOLIMINE,
                                Plaintiff, Appellant,

                                          v.

                UNITED STATES FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATIONS, CIVIL
                       RIGHTS, DIRECTOR AGENT MORRILL, ET AL.,
                                Defendants, Appellees.
                                   ________________

                    APPEALS FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

                     [Hon. William G. Young, U.S. District Judge]
                                             ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

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

                                 ____________________

            Anthony Solimine on brief pro se.
            ________________
            Donald K. Stern,  United States Attorney,  and Gwendolyn  R. Tyre,
            _______________                                __________________
        Assistant United States Attorney, on brief for appellees.


                                 ____________________

                                 ____________________























                 Per Curiam.  The  district court correctly dismissed, as
                 __________

            frivolous,  pursuant  to 28  U.S.C.     1915(d), the  actions

            underlying  each   of  these   appeals.     The   complaints,

            essentially  identical,  were   based  on  "an   indisputably

            meritless  legal theory."  Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319,
                                       _______    ________

            327 (1989).  Appellant's proffered amendment, submitted after

            dismissal in one  action and before  dismissal in the  second

            action,  did  not cure  the  defective  pleading.   Appellant

            attempts  to  contort  his  allegations  into  a  claim of  a

            negligently-done  voluntary  undertaking,   not  within   the

            discretionary function exception to  the Federal Tort  Claims

            Act, 28  U.S.C.    2680.   It  is clear,  however, that  what

            appellant  alleges  is not  a  voluntary  undertaking, but  a

            failure  to undertake what  appellant concedes is  a duty not
            _______

            within defendants' authority.

                 The orders of dismissal are affirmed.
                                             _________