Case Name: Myron N. WEINSTEIN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. GEORGIA STATE BOARD OF EXAMINERS OF PSYCHOLOGISTS, et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-05-24
Citations: 519 F. App'x 599
Docket Number: No. 12-13376
Parties: Myron N. WEINSTEIN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. GEORGIA STATE BOARD OF EXAMINERS OF PSYCHOLOGISTS, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before HULL, WILSON and FARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 519
Pages: 599–600

Head Matter:
Myron N. WEINSTEIN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. GEORGIA STATE BOARD OF EXAMINERS OF PSYCHOLOGISTS, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 12-13376.
United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
May 24, 2013.
David Edward Oles, Sr., Alpharetta, GA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Heather C. McGrotty, Hall Booth Smith, PC, Atlanta, GA, Samuel Scott Olens, Susan Elizabeth Teaster, Attorney General’s Office, State of Georgia, Atlanta, GA, for Defendant-Appellees.
Before HULL, WILSON and FARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Honorable Jerome Farris, United States Circuit Judge for the Ninth Circuit, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Plaintiff-Appellant Myron Weinstein appeals the distinct court's April 3, 2012 order granting Defendants-Appellees' motion to dismiss on abstention grounds. After review and with the benefit of oral argument, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting Defendants-Appellees' motion to dismiss and abstaining under Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 91 S.Ct. 746, 27 L.Ed.2d 669 (1971). See Green v. Jefferson Cnty. Comm'n, 563 F.3d 1243, 1248 (11th Cir.2009) ("We review a district court's decision to abstain from exercising its jurisdiction for an abuse of discretion.").
AFFIRMED.
. After oral argument on May 17, 2013, Plaintiff-Appellant Weinstein tendered a handwritten request to supplement the record on appeal. On May 22, 2013, Weinstein filed a formal motion also requesting to supplement the record on appeal. We deny the requests because we are not inclined to consider documents that were not filed or considered by the district court in the first instance.