Wilson v. Vose

July 25, 1996
                    [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                    FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                                         

No. 96-1184

                    SAMUEL A. WILSON, JR.,

                    Plaintiff, Appellant,

                              v.

                     GEORGE VOSE, ET AL.,

                    Defendants, Appellees.

                                         

         APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

               FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND

        [Hon. Ronald R. Lagueux, U.S. District Judge]
                                                                

                                         

                            Before

                    Torruella, Chief Judge,
                                                      
              Boudin and Lynch, Circuit Judges.
                                                          

                                         

Samuel A. Wilson, Jr. on brief pro se.
                                 
Jeffrey  B. Pine,  Attorney General, and William  M. Kolb, Special
                                                                     
Assistant  Attorney  General,  on  brief for  appellees  George  Vose,
William Chang, Joseph Marocco and Sharon McMann.
J.  Renn Olenn  and Olenn  & Penza on  brief for  appellee William
                                              
Chang, M.D.

                                         

                                         

          Per Curiam.  Appellant Samuel  Wilson, Jr., appeals
                                


from the district court's  sua sponte dismissal of  his claim

that  prison officials were  deliberately indifferent  to his

serious medical  needs in violation of  the Eighth Amendment.

Finding appellant's  claims of error to be  without merit, we

affirm substantially for the  reasons given by the magistrate

judge in his report and recommendation dated October 6, 1995,

which the district court adopted as its decision.

          Affirmed.
                               

                             -2-