Brison v. Marsolais ( 1993 )

USCA1 Opinion

          July 7, 1993
                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT


                                 ____________________


        No. 93-1119

                                  RAYMOND A. BRISON,

                                Plaintiff, Appellant,

                                          v.

                                  MARSOLAIS, ET AL.,

                                Defendants, Appellees.


                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

                       [Hon. Rya W. Zobel, U.S. District Judge]
                                           ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                               Selya, Boudin and Stahl,
                                   Circuit Judges.
                                   ______________

                                 ____________________

            Raymond A. Brison on brief pro se.
            _________________


                                 ____________________


                                 ____________________

















                      Per  Curiam.    We   have  carefully  reviewed  the
                      ___________

            appellant's  brief and the record  on appeal.   We agree with

            the district court's conclusion that appellant's complaint is

            barred by Massachusetts' three-year statute of limitations on

            personal injury actions, Mass.  Gen. L. ch. 260,    2A, which

            is applicable  to civil rights complaints,  filed pursuant to

            42 U.S.C.    1983.  Owens v. Okure, 488  U.S. 235 (1989); see
                                _____    _____                        ___

            also  Street  v. Vose,  936 F.2d  38  (1st Cir.  1991), cert.
            ____  ______     ____                                   _____

            denied, 112  S. Ct.  948 (1992).   There  is  nothing in  the
            ______

            record to  suggest that that limitations period was, or ought

            to  have been,  tolled.   The  order  of the  district  court

            dismissing the complaint is, therefore, affirmed.

                      Affirmed.
                      ________