March 27, 1996

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]



                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT



                                 ____________________





        No. 95-2030







                                C. D. DI GIAMBATTISTA,



                                Plaintiff, Appellant,



                                          v.



                             MICHAEL J. DOHERTY, ET AL.,



                                Defendants, Appellees.





                                 ____________________



                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT



                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS



                     [Hon. A. David Mazzone, U.S. District Judge]
                                             ___________________

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



                                 ____________________



                                        Before



                                Torruella, Chief Judge,
                                           ___________

                           Stahl and Lynch, Circuit Judges.
                                            ______________



                                 ____________________



            C. D. Di Giambattista on brief pro se.
            _____________________





                                 ____________________





                                 ____________________







































                 Per Curiam.  The  judgment is affirmed substantially for
                 __________



            the reasons enumerated by  the district court in its  pair of



            decisions  dated  November 2,  1993  and  September 1,  1995,



            respectively.  We add that plaintiff has proffered no grounds



            for concluding that Judge Mazzone's refusal to recuse himself



            from  the  case  (prior  to its  reassignment  for  unrelated



            reasons) constituted an abuse of discretion.  See, e.g., Town
                                                          ___  ____  ____



            of Norfolk v. United States Army Corps of Engineers, 968 F.2d
            __________    _____________________________________



            1438, 1460 (1st Cir. 1992).   Nor has he pointed to a genuine



            issue  of  material fact  that  would preclude  the  award of



            summary judgment in favor of defendants Henry and Doherty; as



            Judge  Lindsay explained,  the evidence  was  undisputed that



            plaintiff was  arrested as a result of  his abusive behavior.



            Plaintiff's remaining  contentions, to  the extent  they have



            been advanced in something  more than a "perfunctory manner,"



            McIntosh  v. Antonio, 71 F.3d 29, 38 (1st Cir. 1995) (quoting
            ________     _______



            Ryan v. Royal  Ins. Co. of  America, 916  F.2d 731, 734  (1st
            ____    ___________________________



            Cir. 1990)), prove equally unavailing.



                 Affirmed.  See Loc. R. 27.1.
                 ____________________________































                                         -2-