[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]



                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                 ____________________





        No. 97-1914





                                   GENE SCHOFIELD,



                                Plaintiff, Appellant,



                                          v.



                              JAMES BROWN, ETC., 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.
                                            ______________



                                 ____________________



            Gene Schofield on brief pro se.
            ______________

            Ann Pauly, Richmond,  Pauly & Ault and  Leon Friedman on brief for
            _________  _______________________      _____________

        appellees James Brown and Polygram Records, Inc.

            Leonard  L. Lewin,  Michael N.  Sheetz,   and  Gadsby &  Hannah on
            _________________   __________________         ________________

        brief for appellees Dynatone Publishing Co. and Rightsong Music, Inc.





                                 ____________________



                                   February 5, 1998

                                 ____________________

































                 Per Curiam.   This is an appeal from  a summary judgment
                 __________



            dismissing  appellant's  claims  of  copyright  infringement.



            Reviewing the  judgment de novo,  in light of the  briefs and
                                    __ ____



            the record, we  agree with the district  court's analysis and



            affirm  substantially for  the  reasons  set  forth  in  that



            court's Memorandum and Order of  June  11, 1997.  See Loc. R.
                                                              ___



            27.1.   We also  see no  abuse of discretion  in the  court's



            alternative  ruling on  the  defense of  laches,  nor in  the



            multiple procedural rulings which appellant assigns as errors



            on appeal. 



                  Affirmed.
                  ________































































                                         -2-