June 17, 1996

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]



                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                 ____________________





        No. 95-2065



                              UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,



                                 Plaintiff, Appellee,



                                          v.



                      PORTLAND-PARRIS STREET ASSOCIATES, ET AL.,



                                Defendants, Appellees.



                                                 
                                     ____________



                                    WAYNE JOHNSON,



                                Defendant, Appellant.



                                 ____________________



                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT



                              FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE



                     [Hon. D. Brock Hornby, U.S. District Judge]
                                            ___________________



                                 ____________________



                                        Before



                               Torruella, Chief Judge,
                                          ___________

                          Stahl and Lynch, Circuit Judges. 
                                           ______________



                                 ____________________



            Wayne Johnson on brief pro se.
            _____________

            Jay  P.  McCloskey,  United  States  Attorney,  Frank  W.  Hunger,
            __________________                              _________________

        Assistant Attorney  General, Freddi Lipstein and Mark  C. Niles, Civil
                                     _______________     ______________

        Division, Department of Justice.



                                 ____________________





                                 ____________________

                      Per  Curiam.    Defendant-appellant  challenges  an
                      ___________































            adverse summary judgment finding him liable for debts arising



            from  several  promissory notes,  and  the  dismissal of  his



            various counterclaims  on jurisdictional grounds.   Reviewing



            the judgment  and dismissals de novo,  and upon consideration
                                         __ ____



            of   the  parties'   briefs   and  the   record,  we   affirm



            substantially for  the reasons set forth  in district court's



            order of July  27, 1995.  See  Loc. R. 27.1.  We  also see no
                                      ___



            abuse  of  discretion  in  the  district  court's  denial  of



            appellant's request for further discovery in this action.



                      Affirmed.
                      ________



































































                                         -3-