[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]



                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT



                                 ____________________





        No. 96-1815



                                   DEBRA L. MORGAN,



                                Plaintiff, Appellant,



                                          v.



                       BOSTON REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, ET AL.,



                                Defendants, Appellees.



                                 ____________________



                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT



                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS



                      [Hon. Patti B. Saris, U.S. District Judge]
                                            ___________________



                                 ____________________



                                        Before



                                 Cyr, Stahl and Lynch,

                                   Circuit Judges.
                                   ______________



                                 ____________________



            Debra L. Morgan on brief pro se.
            _______________

            Rebecca J. Wilson, William  V. Hoch and Peabody & Arnold on  brief
            _________________  ________________     ________________

        for appellees.





                                 ____________________



                                    March 19, 1997

                                 ____________________







































                      Per  Curiam.     Even assuming  appellant Debra  L.
                      ___________



            Morgan held a property interest in her position of employment



            with the Boston Redevelopment  Authority, a careful review of



            the  record and  the parties' briefs  on appeal  satisfies us



            that the district court correctly ruled that Morgan failed to



            demonstrate a trialworthy issue  as to whether the defendants



            acted  arbitrarily  and   capriciously  in  terminating   her



            employment.  We therefore affirm the judgment of the district



            court in  this regard for  essentially the reasons  stated in



            its Memorandum and Order, dated May 22, 1996.



                      Affirmed.  See Local Rule 27.1.
                      ________   ___































































                                         -2-