January 9, 1996         [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]



                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT



                     

                                 ____________________



        No. 95-1385





                              WILLIAM THOMAS MIDDLETON,



                                Plaintiff, Appellant,



                                          v.



                              ELIZABETH SUTTON, ET AL.,



                                Defendants, Appellees.





                                 ____________________



                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT



                        FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE



                    [Hon. Paul J. Barbadoro, U.S. District Judge]
                                             ___________________



                                 ____________________



                                        Before



                                Selya, Cyr and Boudin,

                                   Circuit Judges.
                                   ______________



                                 ____________________



            William Thomas Middleton on brief pro se.
            ________________________

            William L.  Chapman and Orr  and Reno, Prof.  Assoc. on brief  for
            ___________________     ____________________________

        appellees.





                                 ____________________





                                 ____________________



















































                      Per Curiam.  The plaintiff, now  serving a term for
                      __________



            possession  of  child  pornography,  was  the  subject  of  a



            television program that portrayed him as one who had sexually



            abused and exploited his  own children.  In this  jury waived



            libel action by  the plaintiff against those  involved in the



            program, the  district court ruled on  summary judgment that,



            whether  the program was accurate  or not, the defendants had



            met  the local libel  rules by exercising  reasonable care in



            their   investigation.    See,   e.g.,  Duchesnaye  v.  Munro
                                      ___    ____   __________      _____



            Enterprises, Inc.,  125 N.H.  244, 251 (1984);  accord, e.g.,
            _________________                               ______  ____



            Kassel v. Gannet Co., 875 F.2d 935, 943 (1st Cir. 1989).  For
            ______    __________



            the reasons given  by the  district court, we  agree that  no



            factual  issue  was  presented  as  to  the  adequacy  of the



            investigation on those charges.



                      The  television program  itself, despite  a shallow



            pretence  at serious reporting, was -- as to the plaintiff --



            a highly colored and inflammatory version of the events.  But



            there seems to have been at least some evidence for, and some



            investigation  of, various  key charges.   The  most dramatic



            exception  was the suggestion, for which we have been offered



            no evidence whatever, that  plaintiff served in a pornography



            ring  that was  involved  in the  murder  of children.    But



            plaintiff   himself  failed  to   stress  this  murder  claim



            adequately in opposing summary judgment, it went  unmentioned











                                         -2-





























            by  the district  judge,  and we  think  it  is too  late  to



            resurrect it now.



                      Affirmed.
                      ________































































































                                         -3-