Barth v. VISX, Inc. ( 1997 )

USCA1 Opinion

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]



                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                 ____________________





        No. 97-1156



                                    JOHN S. BARTH,



                                Plaintiff, Appellant,



                                          v.



                                 VISX, INC., ET AL.,



                                Defendants, Appellees.



                                 ____________________





                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT



                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS



                       [Hon. Mark L. Wolf, U.S. District Judge]



                                 ____________________



                                        Before



                               Selya, Boudin and Stahl,

                                   Circuit Judges.
______________



                                 ____________________



            John S. Barth on brief pro se.
_____________

            Maureen  A.  MacFarlane,  Lee  T.  Gesmer  and  Lucash,  Gesmer  &
_______________________   _______________       __________________

        Updegrove, LLP, on brief for appellee.
______________





                                 ____________________



                                   August 26, 1997

                                 ____________________





































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



            the record on appeal.   We affirm the  order of the  district



            court, dated  August 19,  1996, essentially  for the  reasons



            stated in the  district court's memorandum of  the same date.



            As for  the motion  to recuse, we  will assume  arguendo that
________



            appellant intended to file the motion in the present case and



            mistakenly put an  earlier case number on the  motion but, in



            any event,  we affirm the  order of the district  court dated



            October 22, 1993, denying the motion for recusal, essentially



            for the reasons stated in the district court's order.



                 Affirmed.  Loc. R. 27.1.
_________































































                                         -2-