May 15, 1996

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]



                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT



                                 ____________________







        No. 95-2158





                                  JEROME E. CASSELL,



                                Plaintiff, Appellant,



                                          v.



                           STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, 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 Lynch,

                                   Circuit Judges.
                                   ______________



                                 ____________________



            Jerome E. Cassell on brief pro se.
            _________________





                                 ____________________





                                 ____________________











































                      Per  Curiam.  On a review of the complaint under 28
                      ___________



            U.S.C.      1915(d),   the  district   court  dismissed   the



            "retaliatory  transfer" claims  because they  were frivolous.



            We are satisfied that there  was no abuse of discretion since



            the complaint's  allegations cannot  support an inference  of



            unlawful retaliation or conspiracy.   Reviewing the dismissal



            of appellant's other claims de novo, we find no error in  the
                                        __ ____



            jurisdictional  dismissal  of  the  claims   challenging  the



            conditions of appellant's Virginia confinement and, following



            an opportunity to amend, the dismissal  with prejudice of the



            claims alleging  a deprivation  of, or denial  of access  to,



            personal  property  and  legal  materials.    See  Denton  v.
                                                          ___  ______



            Hernandez,  504 U.S.  25, 34 (1992);  Forte v.  Sullivan, 935
            _________                             _____     ________



            F.2d 1 (1st Cir. 1991).



                      Affirmed.
                      ________















































                                         -2-