May 25, 1993
                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]


                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                                 ____________________


        No. 92-2409 

                                   JAMES M. MOONEY,

                                Plaintiff, Appellant,

                                          v.

                      UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, ETC.,

                                 Defendant, Appellee.


                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE


                [Hon. Martin F. Loughlin, Senior U.S. District Judge]
                                          __________________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                               Torruella, Cyr and Stahl,
                                   Circuit Judges.
                                   ______________

                                 ____________________

            James M. Mooney on brief pro se.
            _______________
            Peter E. Papps, Acting United  States Attorney, and  Gretchen Leah
            ______________                                       _____________
        Witt,  Assistant  United  States   Attorney,  on  Motion  for  Summary
        ____
        Disposition, for appellee.


                                 ____________________


                                 ____________________













                      Per  Curiam.    We  have  reviewed  the  record and  the
                      ___________

        parties'  submissions  and  are  persuaded  that  the  district  court

        properly dismissed the instant civil action for lack of subject matter

        jurisdiction.  Moreover,  where appellant's complaint  was not  timely

        filed, transfer to  the Federal Circuit  was not  in the interests  of

        justice under  28 U.S.C.    1631.   Accordingly, the  judgment of  the

        district court is  affirmed.  Appellant's  multiple objections to  our
                           ________

        orders  denying his motions  for oral argument  and appellant's motion

        for authentication are denied.
                               ______