November 28, 1995 [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
____________________
No. 95-1520
ROBERT F. SMITH AND JOANNE M. SMITH,
Plaintiffs, Appellants,
v.
NEW HAMPSHIRE BOARD OF LICENSURE FOR LAND SURVEYORS, ET AL.,
Defendants, Appellees.
____________________
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
[Hon. Paul J. Barbadoro, U.S. District Judge] ___________________
____________________
Before
Cyr, Boudin and Lynch,
Circuit Judges. ______________
____________________
Robert F. Smith and Joanne M. Smith on brief pro se. _______________ _______________
Jeffrey R. Howard, Attorney General, and Stephen J. Judge, Senior _________________ ________________
Assistant Attorney General, on brief for appellees New Hampshire Board
of Land Surveyors and Members.
Donald F. Whittum and Cooper, Hall, Whittum & Shillaber, P.C. on _________________ ________________________________________
brief for appellee David Richard Noyes.
____________________
____________________
Per Curiam. Plaintiffs-appellants filed an amended __________
complaint under 42 U.S.C. 1983 alleging violations of the
First Amendment, due process and equal protection clauses,
all based on the refusal of the New Hampshire Board of
Licensure to hold a formal hearing on plaintiffs'
disciplinary charges against defendant Noyes. The district
court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a
cognizable claim.
Plaintiffs challenge the court's ruling that they
did not plead the deprivation of an interest protected by the
due process clause. They say that the court erroneously
failed to recognize a constitutional deprivation in the
alleged violation of their state law rights to notice and a
hearing on their disciplinary complaint against Noyes. Even
if a protected interest could be identified, however, an
unauthorized deviation from state procedure does not rise to
the level of a constitutional due process violation unless
the state fails to provide a suitable post-deprivation
remedy. See Licari v. Ferruzzi, 22 F.3d 344, 348 (1st Cir. ___ ______ ________
1994). New Hampshire law provides such a remedy through
rehearing and direct appeal of Board orders, see N.H. Rev. ___
Stat. Ann. 310-A:71 (1995) ("Orders of the board shall be
subject to rehearing and appeal in the manner prescribed by
RSA 541."); N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. 541:1-541:6 (1974 & Supp.
1994), or petition for an extraordinary writ. See N.H. Rev. ___
-2-
Stat. Ann. 490:4 (1983). Plaintiffs' remaining contentions
also fail substantially for the reasons stated by the
district court.
Reviewing the district court's decision de novo, _______
the judgment is affirmed. ________
-3-