PER CURIAM:
Plaintiff-Appellant Myron Weinstein appeals the distinct court’s April 3, 2012 order granting Defendants-Appellees’ motion to dismiss on abstention grounds. After review and with the benefit of oral argument, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting Defendants-Appellees’ motion to dismiss and abstaining under Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 91 S.Ct. 746, 27 L.Ed.2d 669 (1971). See Green v. Jefferson Cnty. Comm’n, 563 F.3d 1243, 1248 (11th Cir.2009) (“We review a district court’s decision to abstain from exercising its jurisdiction for an abuse of discretion.”).
AFFIRMED.
. After oral argument on May 17, 2013, Plaintiff-Appellant Weinstein tendered a handwritten request to supplement the record on appeal. On May 22, 2013, Weinstein filed a formal motion also requesting to supplement the record on appeal. We deny the requests because we are not inclined to consider documents that were not filed or considered by the district court in the first instance.