[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]



                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                 ____________________





        No. 97-1810





                                    FRIEDRICH LU,



                                Plaintiff, Appellant,



                                          v.



                              DAVID CHRISTIANI, ET AL.,



                                Defendants, Appellees.



                                 ____________________





                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT



                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS



                     [Hon. Richard Stearns, U.S. District Judge]
                                            ___________________



                                 ____________________



                                        Before



                                Torruella, Chief Judge,
                                           ___________

                           Selya and Stahl, Circuit Judges.
                                            ______________



                                 ____________________



            Friedrich Lu on brief pro se.
            ____________

            Susan M. Donnelly,  B.B.O. and Murphy  & Riley, P.C. on  brief for
            __________________________     _____________________

        appellees.





                                 ____________________



                                  December 18, 1997

                                 ____________________





































                 Per Curiam.    Upon careful  review  of the  briefs  and
                 __________



            record,  we  conclude   that  the  district  court   properly



            dismissed  appellant's amended complaint  because it  did not



            state  a  cognizable  federal  claim.   To  the  extent  that



            appellant  attempts to  raise other  issues  in this  appeal,



            those issues do not merit further comment.



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















































































                                         -2-