FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit

MAR 20 2000

PATRICK FISHER
Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

RONALD V. GATLIN,

	Plaintiff-Appellant,		
v.	No. 99-3386	
HARTLEY, NICHOLSON, HARTLEY, AND ARNETT, P.A.,

	Defendant-Appellee.	(D.C. No. 99-CV-2347-JWL)
(D.  Kan.)	

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before BALDOCK, HENRY, and LUCERO, Circuit Judges.**
                                                                      
	Plaintiff Ronald Gatlin filed a complaint pro se in federal district court, ostensibly under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that Defendant Hartley, Nicholson, Hartley, and Arnett, P.A., a private law firm, deprived him of numerous federal constitutional rights while representing his ex-wife in a state court custody matter concerning the couple’s minor daughter.  In a through Memorandum and Order, the district court dismissed Plaintiff’s federal claims for lack of any “state action” attributable to Defendant as required under § 1983.  The court declined to exercise jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims and dismissed them pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).  Plaintiff appealed.  We exercise jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
	We have thoroughly reviewed the record on appeal, the district court’s order, and the parties’ briefs.  We conclude that the district court properly dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint substantially for the reasons set forth in its Memorandum and Order.  Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is–
	AFFIRMED.
						Entered for the Court,

						Bobby R. Baldock
						Circuit Judge