Yeo v. Lexington, Town of

November 18, 1994     [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]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