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[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]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-