Court Opinion

ID: 2964104
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:20:31.998505+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:52:33.184865
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

          June 5, 1996
                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                 ____________________

        No. 95-2196

                                ROLAND E. HUSTON, JR.,

                                Plaintiff, Appellant,

                                          v.

                             GERMANO M. MARTINS, ET AL.,

                                Defendants, Appellees.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

                   [Hon. Shane Devine, Senior U.S. District Judge]
                                       __________________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                Torruella, Chief Judge,
                                           ___________
                           Stahl and Lynch, Circuit Judges.
                                            ______________

                                 ____________________

            Roland E. Huston, Jr., on brief pro se.
            _____________________
            Jeffrey  R. Howard,  Attorney General,  and William  C.  McCallum,
            __________________                          _____________________
        Assistant Attorney General, on brief for appellees.

                                 ____________________

                                 ____________________

                      Per Curiam.   Roland  E. Huston, Jr.,  appeals from
                      __________

            the  district court's  dismissal of  his  suit against  a New

            Hampshire  child support  enforcement  official and  his  ex-

            wife's  private attorney under 42  U.S.C.   1983.   We affirm

            substantially for the reasons given in the magistrate judge's

            report  dated May  26, 1992,  and order  dated July  6, 1992,

            which  the  district  court   approved  in  its  order  dated

            September 27, 1995.  We add only the following comments.

                      1.  From the  facts as alleged by appellant,  which

            we  take as true, see  Coyne v. City  of Somerville, 972 F.2d
                              ___  _____    ___________________

            440,  443 (1st Cir. 1992), no action adverse to his interests

            was taken  as a result  of the letters haling  him into state

            court.  Nor was  the conduct of the state  agent "conscience-

            shocking" to the degree necessary to constitute a substantive

            due process violation.  See Amsden v. Moran, 904 F.2d 748,754
                                    ___ ______    _____

            (1st  Cir. 1990).   The  district court's  determination that

            appellant's  allegations  do  not  make  out  a  due  process

            violation was correct.  

                      2.   Because  a    1983  conspiracy claim  requires

            proof of a constitutional  deprivation, Brennan v. Hendrigan,
                                                    _______    _________

            888  F.2d 189,  195 (1st  Cir. 1989),  appellant's conspiracy

            claim,  premised on  the alleged  due process  violation, was

            also properly dismissed.

                      3.   Appellant's  abstention  argument is  rendered

            moot by the magistrate's July 6, 1992, order and the district

            court's decision on the merits of the complaint.

                                         -2-

                      Affirmed.
                      ________

                                         -3-