[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]



                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                 ____________________





        No. 96-2048





                                    ERICO DAVIAS,



                                Plaintiff, Appellant,



                                          v.



                               CLYDE GARRIGAN, ET AL.,



                                Defendants, Appellees.



                                 ____________________





                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT



                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE



                   [Hon. Joseph A. DiClerico, U.S. District Judge]
                                              ___________________



                                 ____________________



                                        Before



                                Torruella, Chief Judge,
                                           ___________

                           Campbell, Senior Circuit Judge,
                                     ____________________

                              and Boudin, Circuit Judge.
                                          _____________



                                 ____________________



            Erico Davias on brief pro se.
            ____________

            Paul  M. Gagnon,  United States  Attorney, and  T. David  Plourde,
            _______________                                 _________________

        Assistant United States Attorney, on brief for federal appellees.





                                 ____________________



                                     June 3, 1997

                                 ____________________



































                 Per  Curiam.   We  agree,  essentially  for the  reasons
                 ___________



            recited in the magistrate-judge's June 24, 1996 report (which



            was later  adopted by  the district judge),  that plaintiff's



            various  claims are  subject to dismissal.   The  judgment is



            modified  simply to  reflect  that a  portion of  plaintiff's



            claims--i.e., those that are barred by Heck v.  Humphrey, 512
                                                   ____     ________



            U.S.  477 (1993), and those  that set forth pendent state-law



            claims--are  dismissed  without  prejudice.    The  remaining
                                    _______



            claims are dismissed with prejudice. 
                                 ____



                 The judgment, as modified, is affirmed.
                 _______________________________________



































































                                         -2-