PER CURIAM.
The district judge found that the date of appellant's maximum recovery from the injury involved was September 8, 1946; that the amount due him in this action for maintenance and cure was $575, and that there was no proof that the massage and heat applications, self administered, under which further maintenance is claimed were curative treatments. There is substantial evidence to justify those findings.
The judgment of the district court, 110 F. Supp. 942, will be affirmed.