Cole v. Weadock

Opinion

USCA1 Opinion

July 9, 1996          [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]



                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                 ____________________


No. 96-1057



                                RICHARD A. COLE, M.D.,



                                     Petitioner,



                                          v.



                               THOMAS J. WEADOCK, JR.,

                               Chief Probation Officer,

                           U.S. District of Massachusetts,



                                     Respondent.

                                 ____________________


APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT



                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS



                     [Hon. Joseph L. Tauro, U.S. District Judge]
                                            ___________________



                                 ____________________



                                        Before



                               Selya, Boudin and Stahl,

                                   Circuit Judges.
                                   ______________



                                 ____________________



               Richard A. Cole, M.D. F.A.C.P. on brief pro se.
               ______________________________

               Donald K. Stern, United  States Attorney, and Jeffry Fowley,
               _______________                               _____________

          Special   Assistant  United   States  Attorney,   on   brief  for

          respondent.


____________________


____________________



Per Curiam.   We have considered the parties' briefs and
                 __________



            the  record on appeal.  We affirm essentially for the reasons



            stated in the magistrate  judge's report and  recommendation,



            dated November  14, 1995, which  was accepted and  adopted by



            the district court in an order, dated  November 30, 1995.  In



            addition,  we  find  neither  error   of  law  nor  abuse  of



            discretion in  the  district court's  denial  of  appellant's



            subsequent motion filed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b).



                 Affirmed.  See 1st Cir. R. 27.1.
                 _________  ___