September 23, 1996      [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                 ____________________







        No. 96-1200



                                    MOSHE ROTHMAN,



                                Plaintiff, Appellant,



                                          v.



                             WORCESTER POLICE DEPARTMENT,



                                 Defendant, Appellee.



                                 ____________________





                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT



                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS



                   [Hon. Nathaniel M. Gorton, U.S. District Judge]
                                              ___________________



                                 ____________________



                                        Before



                                Selya, Cyr and Boudin,

                                   Circuit Judges.
                                   ______________



                                 ____________________



            Moshe Rothman on brief pro se.
            _____________







                                 ____________________





                                 ____________________









































                 Per Curiam.   Pro se plaintiff  Moshe Rothman appeals  a
                 __________    ___ __



            district   court  order  that   dismissed  his  civil  rights



            complaint as frivolous  under 28 U.S.C.    1915(d) because it



            is barred by  the statute of  limitations.  After  thoroughly



            reviewing the  record and  appellant's brief on  appeal, this



            court concludes  that the district court's  order is correct.



            See Street v. Vose,  936 F.2d 38,  39 (1st Cir. 1991),  cert.
            ___ ______    ____                                      _____



            denied, 502 U.S. 1063 (1992).   Accordingly, the judgment  of
            ______



            the  district court  is summarily  affirmed.  See  Local Rule
                                               ________   ___



            27.1. 



































































                                         -2-