July 5, 1995

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]



                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT



                           

                                 ____________________





        No. 95-1336



                                 MICHAEL T. ROSSMAN,



                                Plaintiff, Appellant,



                                          v.



                         OFFICE OF THE CHIEF JUSTICE, ET AL.,



                                Defendants, Appellees.





                                 ____________________



                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT



                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS



                   [Hon. Reginald C. Lindsay, U.S. District Judge]



                                 ____________________



                                        Before



                                Torruella, Chief Judge,
                                           ___________

                           Selya and Lynch, Circuit Judges.
                                            ______________



                                 ____________________



            Michael T. Rossman on brief pro se.
            __________________







                                 ____________________





                                 ____________________

































                      Per Curiam.  Complaining about a scheduling  order,
                      __________



            which reassigned  his case from Cambridge  to Concord without



            notice or  hearing, plaintiff filed the  present civil rights



            action.   Plaintiff  contends that  he  has been  denied  due



            process  in the state court.  Plaintiff emphasizes that he is



            not challenging the ruling itself -- that is, the correctness



            of the scheduling order -- but, rather, the lack of process -



            -  the absence of notice  and hearing.   This distinction, he



            seems to believe, immunizes his case from dismissal under the



            Rooker-Feldman doctrine.   Rooker v. Fidelity  Trust Co., 263
            ______________             ______    ___________________



            U.S. 413  (1923); District of  Columbia Court  of Appeals  v.
                              _______________________________________



            Feldman, 460 U.S.  462 (1983).  We disagree.   See Phinizy v.
            _______                                        ___ _______



            Alabama,  847  F.2d  282,  284 (5th  Cir.  1988)  (claim that
            _______



            probate  court's conduct of  proceedings denied plaintiff due



            process  was  inextricably intertwined  with  probate court's



            judgment; consequently, under  Rooker-Feldman, lower  federal
                                           ______________



            court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the challenge).



                      Affirmed.  See 1st Cir. R. 27.1.
                      ________   ___