Martins v. Goodwill ( 1996 )

USCA1 Opinion

          February 28, 1996

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT



                                 ____________________





          No. 95-1774





                                  FAROUK O. MARTINS,



                                Plaintiff, Appellant,



                                          v.



                         CHARLES HAYDEN GOODWILL INN SCHOOL,



                                 Defendant, Appellee.





                                 ____________________



                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT



                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS



                     [Hon. Robert E. Keeton, U.S. District Judge]
___________________



                                 ____________________



                                        Before



                                Torruella, Chief Judge,
___________

                            Selya and Cyr, Circuit Judges.
______________



                                 ____________________



          Farouk Martins on brief pro se.
______________

          Andrew  L.  Matz  and  Stoneman,  Chandler  &  Miller  on  brief for
________________       ______________________________

     appellee.





                                 ____________________





                                 ____________________







































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



            the  record on appeal.  We affirm the district court judgment



            of  July   17,  1995,  granting  summary   judgment  for  the



            defendant, essentially for the reasons stated at the close of



            the hearing  held July 6,  1995, transcript pages  34-48, and



            the memorandum and order, dated July 17, 1995.



                 We  add only  that there  was neither  error of  law nor



            abuse of  discretion in the district  court's earlier vacatur



            of a  default order entered against defendant as it correctly



            concluded that plaintiff had not properly served his original



            complaint and,  in any event, that  original complaint failed



            to state a claim within the jurisdiction of the  court, as it



            inadequately alleged racial discrimination as its basis.



                 Affirmed.
_________