[NOT FOR PUBLICATION NOT TO BE CITED AS PRECEDENT]

                 United States Court of Appeals

                     For the First Circuit









No. 98-2233



   ADALBERTO LOZADA-DIAZ; ARLENE SANABRIA-SOTO; KARLA MICHELLE

        LOZADA-SANABRIA; FELIPE MANUEL LOZADA-SANABRIA; 

                 LUIS ALBERTO LOZADA-SANABRIA, 

                                

                    Plaintiffs, Appellants,

                                

                               v.

                                

         UNITED STATES & UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICES,

                                

                     Defendants, Appellees.

                    _______________________

                                

  ABC INSURANCE CO.; JOHN DOE; RICHARD ROE; DEF INSURANCE CO.,

                                

                          Defendants.

                                

                                

                                

          APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                                

                FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

                                

       [Hon. Juan M. Perez-Gimenez, U.S. District Judge]

                                

                                

                                

                             Before

                     Torruella, Chief Judge,

               Selya and Boudin, Circuit Judges.

                                

                                

                                

     Paul M. Vilaro-Nelms and Vilaro Law Offices on brief for

appellants.

     Guillermo Gil, United States Attorney, Miguel A. Fernandez,

Chief, Civil Division, and Isabel Munoz-Acota, Assistant United

States Attorney, on brief for appellees.









August 6, 1999







            Per Curiam.  Upon careful review of the briefs and

  record, we conclude that plaintiffs' action properly was

  dismissed under Fed. R. Civ. P 12(b)(6) for failure to state a

  claim upon which relief could be granted.  We reach this

  conclusion essentially for the reasons stated by the district

  court in the Opinion and Order dated August 4, 1998, adding

  only one comment.  

            The district court was not required on its own motion

  to volunteer an additional opportunity to amend the complaint

  before dismissing the action, and we decline to require that

  the district court allow an amendment now.  See Royal Business

  Group, Inc. v. Realist, Inc., 933 F.2d 1056, 1066 (1st Cir.

  1991).

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