[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]



                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                 ____________________





        No. 97-1288



                                WILLIAM H. JONES, JR.,



                                Plaintiff, Appellant,



                                          v.



                 COMMISSIONER, NH DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, 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



                               Selya, Boudin and Lynch,

                                   Circuit Judges.
                                   ______________



                                 ____________________



            William H. Jones, Jr. on brief pro se.
            _____________________

            Philip  T.  McLaughlin,  Attorney General,  Martin  P.  Honigberg,
            ______________________                      _____________________

        Senior  Assistant  Attorney  General, and  Jennifer  Brooks Gavilondo,
                                                   __________________________

        Attorney,  Civil Bureau, New  Hampshire Attorney General's  Office, on

        brief for appellees.





                                 ____________________



                                  November 19, 1997

                                 ____________________



































                      Per Curiam.   Plaintiff-appellant William H. Jones,
                      __________



            Jr. appeals following  a district court judgment  in favor of



            various  prison and  halfway house  officials  on his  claims



            brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C.   1983.  We affirm.



                      Jones  complains that  the district court  erred in



            setting  aside an  entry of  default  against Corporal  Frank



            Cassidy.   We review a district court decision to set aside a



            default solely for abuse of discretion.  Leshore v. County of
                                                     _______    _________



            Worcester,  945  F.2d  471,  472  (1st Cir.  1991).    Having
            _________



            reviewed the  record, we find  no abuse of discretion  in the



            instant case.  We add that although  Jones lists the grant of



            summary judgment in  favor of Cassidy as an  issue on appeal,



            he nowhere makes  a developed argument that  summary judgment



            was in  error.   Under the circumstances,  we deem  the issue



            waived.  See King v. Town of  Hanover, 116 F.3d 965, 970 (1st
                     ___ ____    ________________



            Cir. 1997).   We add that even if  the issue were not waived,



            summary judgment  would be proper  for the reasons  stated by



            the district court.



                      Jones also contends  that the district  court erred



            in  granting  summary  judgment in  favor  of  Officer Darren



            Basoukas   Corporal   Stephen  Nolan,   and   Warden  Michael



            Cunningham.  Having reviewed the grant of summary judgment de
                                                                       __



            novo,  we find  no reversible  error.   See Dubois  v. United
            ____                                    ___ ______     ______



            States Dep't of Agric., 102  F.3d 1273, 1283 (1st Cir. 1996),
            ______________________











                                         -2-





























            cert.  denied, 117 S. Ct. 2510 (1997) (setting forth standard
            _____________



            of review).    



                      The claims against Basoukas and Nolan  stemmed from



            Jones's   allegations  that  he  was  denied  insulin  and  a



            hypodermic needle on  May 24, 1994 when he signed  out of the



            halfway  house  to go  to  work.    Both Basoukas  and  Nolan



            submitted affidavits denying any  personal involvement in the



            alleged  incident.  Jones failed to submit any countervailing



            evidence on this point, and, contrary  to his suggestion, the



            records submitted  by  defendants do  not  establish  Nolan's



            presence at the "signing out."   His tardy unsworn allegation



            to  this   effect,  made   in  a   pretrial  statement,   was



            insufficient to defeat  summary judgment.  See  DeNovellis v.
                                                       ___  __________



            Shalala,  124 F.3d  298,  305-06 (1st  Cir. 1997)  ("The very
            _______



            mission of the  summary judgment procedure  is to pierce  the



            pleadings and  to assess  the proof in  order to  see whether



            there is a genuine need for trial." (quoting Fed.  R. Civ. P.



            56(e) advisory committee's note to 1963 amendment)).  F  o  r



            similar  reasons, we reject Jones's challenge to the grant of



            summary judgment in  favor of Cunningham.   The claim against



            Cunningham at issue on appeal stemmed from the alleged denial



            of special diet  meals at the halfway  house.  We agree  with



            the district  court  that  Jones  failed to  show  "[a]  link



            between  defendant  Cunningham's   alleged  indifference  and



            [Jones's] non-receipt of medical meals."  Jones introduced no







                                         -3-





























            evidence, by way of affidavit or otherwise, that he ever made



            any member of Calumet House  aware that his medical condition



            required a  special diet.  His tardy,  unsworn allegations to



            the effect that staff knew he was on a special diet, made for



            the first time in his pretrial statement, are not grounds for



            reversal.



                      Affirmed.
                      _________















































































                                         -4-