Howard v. State

USCA1 Opinion

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]



                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                 ____________________





        No. 97-1241





                               KENNETH HOWARD, ET AL.,



                               Plaintiffs, Appellants,



                                          v.



                    STATE OF RHODE ISLAND, WATER RESOURCES BOARD,



                                 Defendant, Appellee.



                                 ____________________





                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT



                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND



                     [Hon. Ernest C. Torres, U.S. District Judge]
___________________



                                 ____________________



                                        Before



                                 Selya, Circuit Judge,
_____________

                           Campbell, Senior Circuit Judge,
____________________

                              and Lynch, Circuit Judge.
_____________



                                 ____________________



            John  W.  Dineen  and  Yesser,  Glasson  &  Dineen  on  brief  for
________________       ___________________________

        appellants.

            Jeffrey   B.  Pine,   Attorney   General,  and   Rebecca   Tedford
__________________                               _________________

        Partington, Assistant Attorney General, on brief for appellee.
__________





                                 ____________________



                                   October 14, 1997

                                 ____________________































                 Per Curiam.    Upon careful  review  of the  briefs  and
__________



            record, we conclude  that appellants' complaint properly  was



            dismissed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state



            a claim and that their motion to amend the complaint properly



            was  denied  as  futile.    We  reach  this   conclusion  for



            substantially the same  reasons stated by the  district court



            in its Memorandum and Order dated December 31, 1996.



                 Affirmed.  See 1st Cir. Loc. R. 27.1.
________   ___











































































                                         -2-