Issac Patterson v. Harold Clark ( 2015 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 15-6572
    ISSAC D. PATTERSON,
    Plaintiff – Appellant,
    v.
    HAROLD CLARK, Director Virginia/D.O.C.; BRYAN WATSON,
    Warden; JERRY TOWNSEND, Assistant Warden; ELIZA S. WILLIS,
    Institutional Program Manager,
    Defendants - Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District
    Judge. (2:12-cv-00006-RAJ-DEM)
    Submitted:   October 29, 2015             Decided:   November 24, 2015
    Before MOTZ, AGEE, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Issac D. Patterson, Appellant Pro Se. James Milburn Isaacs, Jr.,
    OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia,
    for Appellees.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Issac    D.   Patterson      appeals        the    district          court’s      order
    granting defendants’ motion for summary judgment and dismissing
    Patterson’s complaint filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012).                                  We
    have     reviewed       the   record     and       find    no       reversible        error.
    Patterson      claims    that   defendants         are    responsible         for     placing
    false information in his file, which the Virginia Parole Board
    relied on to deny him parole.                     Even if that information was
    false,    “where     the      denial    of       parole    .    .     .     rests   on     one
    constitutionally valid ground, the Board’s consideration of an
    allegedly      invalid     ground      would     not     violate      a     constitutional
    right.”        Bloodgood v. Garraghty, 
    783 F.2d 470
    , 475 (4th Cir.
    1986).     Here, in addition to the allegedly false information,
    the Board provided several other constitutionally valid grounds
    for denying parole.           We dispense with oral argument because the
    facts    and    legal    contentions      are      adequately        presented        in   the
    materials      before    this    court    and      argument         would    not    aid    the
    decisional process.
    AFFIRMED
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 15-6572

Judges: Motz, Agee, Diaz

Filed Date: 11/24/2015

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/6/2024