Yeo v. Lexington, Town of ( 1994 )

USCA1 Opinion

          November 18, 1994     [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]


                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                              _________________________

          No. 94-1748

                                DOUGLAS E. YEO, ETC.,

                                Plaintiff, Appellant,

                                          v.

                              TOWN OF LEXINGTON, ET AL.,

                                Defendants, Appellees.

                              _________________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

                    [Hon. Richard G. Stearns, U.S. District Judge]
___________________

                              _________________________

                                        Before

                                Selya, Circuit Judge,
_____________

                            Bownes, Senior Circuit Judge,
____________________

                              and Stahl, Circuit Judge.
_____________

                              _________________________

               John W. Spillane, with  whom John J. Spillane was  on brief,
________________             ________________
          for appellant.
               Jason Berger, with whom  John F. Welsh, Adam P.  Forman, and
____________             _____________  _______________
          Testa, Hurwitz & Thibeault were on brief, for appellees.
__________________________

                              _________________________



                              _________________________



















                    Per  Curiam.    We  dismiss  this  appeal  for  want of
Per  Curiam.
___________

          appellate jurisdiction  on the  ground of  mootness.   See, e.g.,
___  ____

          Oakville Dev. Corp. v. FDIC,  986 F.2d 611, 613 (1st Cir.  1993).
___________________    ____

          This dismissal  is  without prejudice  to  appellant's  continued

          prosecution of  the underlying  action, which remains  pending in

          the  district  court.    We  take  no  view  of  either  (1)  the

          appropriateness  of the  district court's  denial  of preliminary

          injunctive relief, or (2) the merits of the case.



                    Appeal dismissed.  No costs.
Appeal dismissed.  No costs.
________________   ________


































                                          2