[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]



                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                 ____________________





        No. 97-1862





                         ESTATE OF JENNIE E. PREVETT, ET AL.,



                               Plaintiffs, Appellants,



                                          v.



                            BETTY ANN COHEN, DR., ET AL.,



                                Defendants, Appellees.



                                 ____________________





                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT



                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS



                  [Hon. George A. O'Toole, Jr., U.S. District Judge]



                                 ____________________



                                        Before



                                Torruella, Chief Judge,
                                           ___________

                           Stahl and Lynch, Circuit Judges.
                                            ______________



                                 ____________________



            Peter D. Prevett on brief pro se.
            ________________

            Pamela S.  Gilman, Jennifer Ellis  Burke and Taylor, Duane, Barton
            _________________  _____________________     _____________________

        & Gilman, LLP on brief for appellee, Betty Ann Cohen, M.D.
        _____________

            Wilson D. Rogers, Jr., Wilson D. Rogers,  III and Dunn and Rogers,
            _____________________  ______________________     ________________

        P.C.  on brief  for appellees,  Richard NG,  M.D. and  St. Elizabeth's
        ____

        Medical Center of Boston, Inc.





                                 ____________________



                                  November 10, 1997

                                 ____________________































                 Per  Curiam.  Upon careful review of the parties' briefs
                 ___________



            and the appellate  record, we reject plaintiffs'  contentions



            that the district court misinterpreted the  Emergency Medical



            Treatment and Active Labor Act  (EMTALA), 42 U.S.C.   1395dd,



            and  applied an  incorrect  standard under  Fed.  R. Civ.  P.



            12(b)(6).    Substantially  for  the  reasons  given  in  the



            district  court  order  dated  June  30,  1997,  the  amended



            complaint failed to state  an EMTALA claim upon which  relief



            could be granted, even though the complaint nominally invoked



            EMTALA.  See Vickers v.  Nash General Hospital, Inc., 78 F.3d
                     ___ _______     ___________________________



            139, 143-44 (4th Cir. 1996). 



                 We   make  no  comment  on  the  merits  of  plaintiffs'



            remaining state law claims.



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



















































                                         -2-