April 23, 1996

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]



                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT



                                 ____________________





        No. 96-1176



                            MAXIMILIANO AMPARO CONCEPCION,



                                Plaintiff, Appellant,



                                          v.



                            ADMINISTRACION DE CORRECCION,



                                Defendants, Appellees.





                                 ____________________



                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT



                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO



                    [Hon. Hector M. Laffitte, U.S. District Judge]
                                              ___________________







                                 ____________________



                                        Before



                                Torruella, Chief Judge,
                                           ___________

                           Stahl and Lynch, Circuit Judges.
                                            ______________



                                 ____________________



            Maximiliano Amparo Concepcion on brief pro se.
            _____________________________





                                 ____________________





                                 ____________________









































                      Per Curiam.  We agree with  the district court that
                      __________



            plaintiff's allegations with respect to his  dental treatment



            were  insufficient to  state a  constitutional claim,  and we



            affirm  the   dismissal  of  that  claim.     Plaintiff  also



            contended, however, that the correctional facility has no law



            library and outlined a denial of access to courts claim.  The



            district  court did not address  this claim when it dismissed



            plaintiff's action.  We conclude that plaintiff stated enough



            to survive a  sua sponte  dismissal of the  access to  courts



            claim  and therefore  vacate  the judgment  of dismissal  and



            remand  for further  consideration  of the  access to  courts



            claim.



                 Vacated and remanded.
                 ____________________























































                                         -2-