July 18, 1996

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]



                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                 ____________________





        No. 96-1249



                               RICHARD A. COLE, ET AL.,



                               Plaintiffs, Appellants,



                                          v.



                                MARIA FABIANO, ET AL.,



                               Defendants, Appellants.



                                 ____________________





                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT



                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS



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



                                 ____________________



                                        Before



                                Selya, Cyr and Boudin,

                                   Circuit Judges.
                                   ______________



                                 ____________________



            Richard A. Cole, M.D. F.A.C.P. on brief pro se.
            ______________________________

            Hugh C. Carlin, Gross, Shuman, Brizdle  & Gilfillan, P.C., Lee  T.
            ______________  _________________________________________  _______

        Gesmer, and Lucash, Gesmer & Updegrove on brief for appellees.
        ______      __________________________





                                 ____________________





                                 ____________________











                      Per Curiam.  Upon careful  review of the record and
                      __________































            appellate  briefs,  it clearly  appears  that  no substantial



            question is presented for review.  



                      Because appellant  did not ask  the district  court



            for a  transfer and made no showing  that a transfer would be



            in the  interest of  justice, we  conclude that  the district



            court did not abuse  its discretion in failing to  order one.



            See 28  U.S.C.    1406(a);  Cote v. Wadel, 796  F.2d 981, 984
            ___                         ____    _____



            (7th  Cir. 1986); see  also Mulcahy v.  Guertler, 416 F.Supp.
                              _________ _______     ________



            1083, 1086 (D.Mass. 1976).



                      Appellant's   remaining   arguments  likewise   are



            without  merit:   he  had  ample  opportunity  to respond  to



            defendants' motion to dismiss; he never sought leave to amend



            his complaint, and, in any case, amendment would not cure the



            defects in venue; and  neither defendants' credibility on the



            issue of service, nor appellant's failure to obtain a copy of



            the local rules, suggests to us any reason to reverse. 



                      Affirmed.  See 1st Cir. Loc. R. 27.1.
                      ________   ___







































                                         -3-