In Re: Burgess v.

Opinion

USCA1 Opinion

        October 7, 1994         [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                                 ____________________

No. 94-1728

IN RE:  WILLIAM J. BURGESS,

                                      Appellant.

____________________

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

[Hon. Martin F. Loughlin, Senior U.S. District Judge]
                                          __________________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                Selya, Cyr and Boudin,
                                   Circuit Judges.
                                   ______________

                                 ____________________

            William J. Burgess on brief pro se.
            __________________

____________________

____________________

Per  Curiam.   The  district  court  did not  abuse  its
                 ___________

discretion  in  denying  the  request  to  proceed  in  forma

            pauperis, see Temple v. Ellerthorpe, 586 F. Supp. 848 (D.R.I.
                      ___ ______    ___________

            1984)   (discussing   the   discretionary  nature   of   this

            determination),  nor   did  it  fail  to   give  an  adequate

            explanation,  assuming it  were  obliged to  do  so, for  its

            ruling.

                 Affirmed.
                 _________

-3-