[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]



                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                 ____________________





        No. 96-1447



                                   MIGUEL A. BREA,



                                Plaintiff, Appellant,



                                          v.



                    LARRY E. DUBOIS, COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTIONS,



                                 Defendant, Appellee.





                                 ____________________



                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT



                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS



                     [Hon. William G. Young, U.S. District Judge]
                                             ___________________



                                 ____________________



                                        Before



                                Selya, Cyr and Boudin,

                                   Circuit Judges.
                                   ______________



                                 ____________________



            Miguel Angel Brea on brief pro se.
            _________________

            Nancy A.  White, Special Assistant  Attorney General, and  Herbert
            _______________                                            _______

        C. Hanson,  Senior Litigation  Attorney, Department of  Correction, on
        _________

        Motion for Summary Disposition, for appellee.





                                 ____________________



                                   August 27, 1996

                                 ____________________





































                      Per Curiam.   We affirm for  the reasons stated  by
                      __________



            the  district  court.    Despite  an  opportunity  to  amend,



            plaintiff failed to  allege any action or  inaction rising to



            the level of deliberate indifference to plaintiff's needs and



            therefore failed  to state  an Eighth  Amendment claim.   See
                                                                      ___



            Wilson   v.  Seiter,   501   U.S.   294  (1991)   (deliberate
            ___________________



            indifference  standard).     Nor  did  he   state  any  other



            constitutional claim.   Plaintiff may  pursue whatever  state



            causes of action he believes he may have in state court.



                      Plaintiff's  motion to strike appellee's motion for



            summary disposition is denied.



                      Affirmed.  See Loc. R. 27.1.
                      ________   ___



























































                                         -2-