April 25, 1995 [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]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-