Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Huston, Jr v. Martins, 95-2196 (1996)

Court: Court of Appeals for the First Circuit Number: 95-2196 Visitors: 4
Filed: Jun. 05, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: ___________, Stahl and Lynch, Circuit Judges.Roland E. Huston, Jr., on brief pro se.__________________ _____________________, Assistant Attorney General, on brief for appellees.due process violation.888 F.2d 189, 195 (1st Cir.court's decision on the merits of the complaint.
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[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]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-





Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer