December 21, 1995

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT





                                 ____________________





        No. 95-1504 



                                   IDALIA MORALES,



                                Plaintiff, Appellant,



                                          v.



                              UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,



                                 Defendant, Appellee.





                                 ____________________



                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT



                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO





                    [Hon. Raymond L. Acosta, U.S. District Judge]
                                             ___________________



                                 ____________________



                                        Before



                                Selya, Stahl and Lynch,

                                   Circuit Judges.
                                   ______________



                                 ____________________



            Idalia Morales on brief pro se.
            ______________

            Guillermo Gil,  United States Attorney,  and Maria Hortensia  Rios
            _____________                                _____________________

        Gandara, Assistant United States Attorney, on brief for appellee.
        _______





                                 ____________________





                                 ____________________







































                      Per Curiam.    Reviewing de  novo the dismissal  of
                      __________               __  ____



            plaintiff's  complaint for failure to state a claim, and upon



            consideration of the parties' briefs and the record, we agree



            with the district  court's analysis and  affirm substantially



            for the reasons set forth in its memorandum order of February



            15, 1995.



                      Affirmed.  See Loc. R. 27.1.
                      ________   ___