January 18, 1996        [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]



                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT



                           

                                 ____________________





        No. 95-1735 



                                 JENNIFER GOLDSTEIN,



                                Plaintiff, Appellant,



                                          v.



                             HARVARD UNIVERSITY, ET AL.,



                                Defendants, Appellees.





                                 ____________________



                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT



                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS



                     [Hon. Nancy J. Gertner, U.S. District Judge]
                                             ___________________



                                 ____________________



                                        Before



                                Torruella, Chief Judge,
                                           ___________

                           Stahl and Lynch, Circuit Judges.
                                            ______________



                                 ____________________



            Jennifer Goldstein on brief pro se.
            __________________

            Diane  E.   Lopez,  Office   of  the   General  Counsel,   Harvard
            _________________

        University, on brief for appellees.





                                 ____________________





                                 ____________________



















































                      Per Curiam.  Plaintiff/appellant Jennifer Goldstein
                      __________



            appeals  from  a district  court  order  dismissing her  258-



            paragraph complaint without prejudice because of its  failure



            to conform to  the concise pleading  requirements of Fed.  R.



            Civ.  P.  Rule  8(a)(2).   We  have  carefully  reviewed  the



            complaint and the parties' briefs.  We affirm essentially for



            the reasons stated by the district court.  The district court



            order does not, on its face, preclude an eventual decision on



            the merits,  and appellant makes no  meaningful argument that



            she  is foreclosed  from pursuing  her claims.   We  add that



            appellant's allegation of judicial bias was not raised below,



            and, in  any event, is  meritless.  See Brody  v. President &
                                                ___ _____     ___________



            Fellows of Harvard College,  664 F.2d 10, 11 (1st  Cir. 1981)
            __________________________



            (noting that all judges  come to the bench with  a background



            of  experiences,  associations and  viewpoints and  that this



            background  is  seldom  sufficient  in itself  to  provide  a



            reasonable basis  for recusal),  cert. denied, 455  U.S. 1027
                                             ____________



            (1982).  The request to seal the dismissal order is denied.



                      Affirmed.
                      ________































                                         -2-