[NOT FOR PUBLICATION–NOT TO BE CITED AS PRECEDENT] United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit

No. 99-1136 MARIAN E. HAMPTON, Plaintiff, Appellant, v. COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS, Defendant, Appellee.

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS [Hon. Robert E. Keeton, U.S. District Judge]

Before Torruella, Chief Judge, Boudin and Lynch, Circuit Judges.

Marian E. Hampton on brief pro se.

Thomas F. Reilly, Attorney General and John E. Bowman, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, on brief for appellee.

September 26, 2000 Per Curiam. We have reviewed the parties' briefs and the record on appeal. We review de novo the legal determination of whether the requirements for abstention have been met. Brooks v. New Hampshire Supreme Court, 80 F.3d 633, 637 (1st Cir. 1996). We conclude that the requirements were met and the district court did not err in dismissing the case on abstention grounds.

At the time of the district court's December 16, 1998 hearing, there was (1) an ongoing state judicial proceeding, (2) implicating important state interests, (3) which provided appellant an adequate opportunity to raise her constitutional challenge. See Middlesex Ethics Comm. v. Garden State Bar Ass'n, 457 U.S. 423, 432 (1982) (outlining the three part inquiry); see also Brooks v. New Hampshire Supreme Court, 80 F.3d at 638. Appellant, herself, foreclosed her opportunity for state court consideration of her claim when she voluntarily absented herself from the divorce trial.

The district court judgment of dismissal, dated December 16, 1998, is affirmed.