April 25, 1995           [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
                        UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                            FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT





                             ____________________

   No. 94-2177

                       KENNETH E. BLEVENS, SR., ET AL.,

                           Plaintiffs, Appellants,

                                      v.

                     TOWN OF BOW, NEW HAMPSHIRE, 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,
                                       ___________
                       Selya and Stahl, Circuit Judges.
                                        ______________

                             ____________________

     John E. Laboe and Laboe Associates on brief for appellants.
     _____________     ________________
     Gary B. Richardson and Upton, Sanders & Smith on brief for appellees.
     __________________     ______________________


                             ____________________


                             ____________________




























                 Per   Curiam.     Appellants   Kenneth   Blevens,   Sr.,
                 ____________

            Christopher Blevens,  and  Kenneth Blevens,  Jr.  appeal  the

            grant   of  appellees'   motion   for  summary   judgment  on

            appellants' federal claims  and the dismissal  of appellants'

            state  claims  without  prejudice.   Appellants  seek relief,

            pursuant  to  42 U.S.C.    1983  and  state law,  for alleged

            violations of  their rights arising out  actions by appellees

            Town  of Bow,  members of  its planning  board, and  its town

            planner.   We affirm essentially for the reasons given in the

            district court order dated October 12, 1994.  We add only the

            following.

                 Even if  we assume arguendo that  appellees violated the
                                    ________

            Blevens'  property  rights   by,  in  effect,   consolidating

            historically  separate   lots   in  October   1991,   thereby

            establishing a  violation of  their rights to  procedural due

            process,  the  Blevenses  must  also show  that  they  lacked

            adequate postdeprivation remedies for the alleged deprivation

            of  their property rights.   See Licari v.  Ferruzzi, 22 F.3d
                                         ___ ______     ________

            344, 347 (1st Cir. 1994) (no violation of right to procedural

            due  process  where  adequate  postdeprivation  remedies  are

            available).  In  the instant case, the  Blevenses failed even

            to seek, pursuant to state law, relief from the town planning

            board, the board of  adjustment, or the superior court.   See
                                                                      ___

            N.H.  Rev.   Stat.  Ann.      676:4;      676:5;      677:15.

            "[A]ppellants  cannot complain  of a violation  of procedural



                                         -2-

















            due process rights  when appellants have  made no attempt  to

            avail  themselves  of  existing  state  procedures."   Boston
                                                                   ______

            Environmental Sanitation Inspectors Asso. v. Boston, 794 F.2d
            ________________________________________     ______

            12, 13 (1st Cir. 1986).

                 The  judgment  of  the   district  court  is   summarily
                                                                _________

            affirmed.  See 1st Cir. Loc. R. 27.1.
            ________  ____









































                                         -3-