[Not for Publication]
                                [Not for Publication]



                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                 ____________________



        No. 95-1990



                                  DAVID H. JOHNSON,



                                Plaintiff, Appellant,



                                          v.



                   AMERICAN EMPIRE SURPLUS LINES INSURANCE COMPANY,



                                 Defendant, Appellee.



                                 ____________________



                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT



                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS



                [Hon. Charles B. Swartwood III, U.S. Magistrate Judge]
                                                _____________________



                                 ____________________



                                        Before



                                Boudin, Circuit Judge,
                                        _____________



                           Campbell, Senior Circuit Judge,
                                     ____________________



                              and Lynch, Circuit Judge.
                                         _____________



                                 ____________________



            Douglas Q. Meystre and  Fletcher, Tilton & Whipple, P.C. on  brief
            __________________      ________________________________

        for appellant.

            Joseph  P. Musacchio, John F.  Rooney, III and  Melick & Porter on
            ____________________  ____________________      _______________

        brief for appellee.





                                 ____________________



                                    March 11, 1996

                                 ____________________



































               Per Curiam.  We agree with the magistrate judge that the
               __________



              critical language of the insurance policy is not ambiguous



             and that the plain meaning accords with the result suggested



            by considering the entire policy and reasonable expectations. 



             Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in the memorandum of



              the magistrate judge, the judgment is affirmed pursuant to
                                                    ________



                                   Local Rule 27.1.















































































                                         -2-
                                         -2-