May 30, 1995

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT





                                 ____________________



        No. 94-1944





                                  ANTHONY SOLIMINE,



                                Plaintiff, Appellant,



                                          v.



                                ORTHO MCNEIL, ET AL.,



                                Defendants, Appellees.







                                 ____________________



                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT



                        FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS



                       [Hon. Rya W. Zobel, U.S. District Judge]
                                           ___________________



                                 ____________________



                                        Before



                                Torruella, Chief Judge,
                                           ___________

                          Selya and Boudin, Circuit Judges.
                                            ______________



                                 ____________________



            Anthony Solimine on brief pro se.
            ________________





                                 ____________________





                                 ____________________











































                 Per Curiam.  We have reviewed  appellant's brief and the
                 __________



            record  on appeal.   We  affirm  essentially for  the reasons



            stated in  the district  court's memorandum, dated  April 26,



            1994.



                 Appellant's "motion  for leave  to file  up to  ten (10)



            page memorandum on supplemental  authorities and an appendix"



            and   "motion  for   leave  to   file  brief   memorandum  of



            supplemental  authorities"  are denied.   They  are extremely
                                            _______



            tardy and, in any event, present nothing of merit.



                 Appellant's motion for oral argument is denied.
                                                         _______



                 The district court's order of dismissal is affirmed.
                                                            _________































































                                         -2-