
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          June 5, 1996                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                                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-
