Murray v. Trans ( 1996 )

USCA1 Opinion

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]



                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT











                                 ____________________





        No. 96-1385



                                 FRED L. MURRAY, JR.,



                                Plaintiff, Appellant,



                                          v.



                               TRANS UNION CORPORATION,



                                 Defendant, Appellee.





                                 ____________________



                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT



                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS



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



                                 ____________________



                                        Before



                                Selya, Cyr and Stahl,

                                    Circuit Judges.
______________



                                 ____________________



            Fred L. Murray on brief pro se.
______________

            Mark E.  Kogan,  Bruce S.  Luckman,  Marion,  Satzberg, Trichon  &
______________   _________________   _____________________________

        Kogan, P.C. and Robinson & Cole on brief for appellee.
___________     _______________





                                 ____________________



                                   December 3, 1996

                                 ___________________



























                 Per Curiam.  Pro  se plaintiff Fred L. Murray  appeals a
__________   ___  __



            district  court  order  that  granted  defendant Trans  Union



            Corporation  summary  judgment   on  Murray's  complaint  for



            violations  of the  Fair Credit Reporting  Act, 15  U.S.C.



            1681e(b) and  1681i(a) and (c), the  Equal Credit Opportunity



            Act, 15 U.S.C.    1691-1691f, and various common  law claims.



            This  court  has  thoroughly  reviewed  the  record  and  the



            parties'  claims on appeal.   We agree  that summary judgment



            was properly entered for  the reasons stated in the  district



            court's memorandum and order.1   Accordingly, the judgment of
1



            the  district court  is  summarily affirmed.  See Local  Rule
_________ ________   ___



            27.1.   Murray's motion for  sanctions, motion to  compel and



            continue  discovery,  and  motion  to  amend  district  court



            complaint and add supplemental pleading are denied.
______










































____________________



               1 We add that the record fails to establish a violation of
1

            15 U.S.C.  1681i.



                                         -2-